Inventory and Analysis - City of Beacon, New Yorkcityofbeacon.org/Pdf/inventory-analysis-2006-full.pdfThe Inventory and Analysis document is a ... policies to guide the City’s future

City of Beacon

Comprehensive Plan

March 2006

Prepared by:

Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation

Inventory and

Analysis

INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

City of Beacon Comprehensive Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. Introduction and Evaluation of Prior Planning Documents…. I-1

II. Land Use, Zoning and Development Potential……………… II-1

III. Traffic Circulation and Parking Facilities…………………... III-1

IV. Demographics and Housing…………………………………. IV-1

V. Community Services and Facilities……................................. V-1

VI. City Utilities…………………………………………………. VI-1

VII. Environmental Resources…………………………………… VII-1

Maps

Study Areas

Aerial Map

Existing Land Use

Elevation Map

Environmental Features

Water Resources

Community Facilities

Traffic Circulation Plan

Parking Facilities Plan

Appendix

Development Potential of Large Undeveloped Lots

Development Potential of Industrial Areas

Development Potential of Main Street



APPENDIX



MAPS

Inventory and Analysis Introduction

City Beacon Comprehensive Plan (March 2006) I-1

I. INTRODUCTION AND EVALUATION OF

PRIOR PLANNING DOCUMENTS

A. INTRODUCTION

The Inventory and Analysis document is a fundamental component of the City of

Beacon’s Comprehensive Plan project. This document provides basic information about

the City’s history and current conditions. Subsequent components of the Comprehensive

Plan will describe significant issues and opportunities, and the goals, objectives and

policies to guide the City’s future development.

Information presented in the Inventory and Analysis document, together with the findings

of the City’s Public Opinion Survey and the public involvement process will provide a

basis for developing the community vision, goals and objectives of the new

Comprehensive Plan.

The Comprehensive Plan Committee and other City representatives will be actively

involved in formulating drafts of the subsequent components. Input from residents, local

businesses and property owners is an important part of the planning process.

Opportunities for the public to identify their opinions on issues and recommendations

will continue throughout the planning process.

The focus of the City’s planning effort is the Main Street Business District and the larger

undeveloped or vacant properties and buildings throughout the City. These areas have

identified areas specifically as Study Areas, and this document includes data on these

areas to a greater degree of detail and specificity than areas in the rest of the City. Please

refer to the Study Areas map at the back of this document for more detailed information

about the exact boundaries of the Study Areas, and to Section D in Chapter II for a

breakdown of the areas numbered on the map.

This Inventory and Analysis document contains data and information regarding the

following topic areas: an Evaluation of Prior Planning Documents; Land Use, Zoning,

and Development Potential; Traffic Circulation and Parking Facilities; Demographics and

Housing; Community Services and Facilities; City Utilities; and Environmental

Resources. The information contained in the document was obtained from a number of

local, regional, State and Federal sources. The preparation of this document involved the

review of previous plans and studies, the compilation of information, contact with various

organizations, and the analysis of each topic area. The sources include the U.S. Census

Bureau, the Dutchess Country Department of Planning, the Dutchess County Office of

Real Property Services, the Dutchess County Environmental Management Council, other

local agencies and organizations, the City’s tax office, and the City Building Department.



The Inventory and Analysis document is a working document which can be updated by

the City. As information changes, such as the census and economic data, or is produced

by other organizations, relevant sections can be updated, or additional data and analysis

incorporated into appendices of the document.

B. EVALUATION OF PRIOR PLANNING DOCUMENTS

It is important to consider the research and policies of prior planning efforts in order to

effectively build upon what remains relevant to present and future circumstances. This

section of this document reviews Beacon’s 1962 and 1974 Plans, as well as updates to the

1974 Plan and the City’s 1990 Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. The Dutchess

County Planning Department has also produced Plans, first in 1965 and most recently in

1987, which have specific recommendations for Beacon. The County’s “Greenway

Connections” is also included in the review of Plans. [Include Glynwood Center report,

1999] Finally, the evaluation contained in this section also briefly discusses some of the

local area planning that has taken place in the last several years regarding Long Dock, the

City’s Harbor, and lands owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority adjacent to

the Beacon train station.

The City of Beacon has a long history of planned development. The City’s 1962 “City

Development Plan” was conducted in conjunction with plans for the Towns of Fishkill

and Wappinger. The City adopted a new, updated Development Plan in 1974, again as a

part of a larger project involving planning for the Towns of Fishkill and Wappinger, and

the Villages of Fishkill and Wappingers Falls. The 1974 planning process involved the

creation of a “Southern Dutchess Area Development Plan,” as well as individual plans for

each municipality in the area. The 1974 Plan was first amended in 1996 to add “Specific

and Remedial Housing Goals” to the goals and policies of the 1974 Plan. Another

amendment revised the City Development map to change the meaning of “Low-Density

Residential” from “1 to 2 dwelling units per acre” to “2 or fewer dwelling units per acre.”

Other amendments to the Plan have added content to the background information, but

have not changed the goals and policies of the plan. The background information from

the original plans and the updates has been incorporated into this document, although in

many cases the format of the data has changed.

The goals and policies currently in effect are summarized below, and each are evaluated

according to their relevance for the City’s current status and future development.



CURRENT GOALS AND POLICIES

GOAL 1A

Balanced Growth: Opportunity for Choice:

The City should offer its inhabitants and newcomers a wide

range of opportunities for shelter, services and social needs.

Basic freedom of choice is best preserved in a socially

balanced environment where the choices of interaction of

isolation in a community are within the realm determined by

the individual's initiative to exercise his freedom and to

choose his own sphere of interaction.

Policies:

1. Housing should be provided across a wide range of

size, type and character, and should be provided for all

income levels. Densities of housing areas should allow

for considerable variation, with higher densities of

housing located around the central commercial hub and

transportation center of Beacon.

2. Variety in the opportunities for employment within the

community and ease of movement and freedom of

access to surrounding employment centers should be

provided. The Plan supports the growth of commercial

and office jobs and governmental services in the

Beacon central business district to help increase its

quality of services, public transportation and an

efficient interchange among related activities.

3. Community services for all age groups should be

provided consistent with the economic growth of the

City and its available resources. Regional facilities

should be encouraged to locate in the City.

GOAL 1B

Specific and Remedial Housing Goals:

The City, through its zoning and other policies should attempt

to: (1) preserve the existing character of neighborhoods; (2)

maintain a balanced housing stock which complies with the

EVALUATION

GOAL 1A.

Satisfactory. No change

required.

Policies:

1. Satisfactory. Levels of

housing density around

commercial and

transportation centers will

be re-evaluated by the

Comprehensive Plan

Committee.

2. Satisfactory.

3. Satisfactory.

GOAL 1B

(1) Satisfactory. The

Committee should

evaluate what

neighborhoods or areas, if

any, are proposed to

change. (2) Code

Compliance for

commercial and multi-

family properties has

increased steadily over the

last several decades. (3)

The appropriate balance

of owner-occupied and

renter-occupied housing

should be determined by

the Committee. Findings

statements should be

separate from policy



Building Code; (3) encourage owner-occupied housing

(which tends to be better maintained through pride of

ownership); (4) require high quality, long lasting

construction; (5) provide incentives for the preservation of

historic and older homes; (6) effect an overall stabilization of

density; and (7) discourage development which involves

significant land manipulation and its attendant potential for

drainage, erosion and other environmental problems.

Policies:

1. The City should amend is zoning for the purposes of:

a. Replacing, in certain existing predominantly

single-family detached neighborhoods, the RD-

3 Designed Residence District (which permits

single-family, two-family, and multi-family

dwelling units at a density of 3,000 square feet

per unit) with a new R1-5 One-Family

Residence District (which would permit single-

family detached homes on 5,000 square foot

lots).

b. Replacing, in certain other areas, where

appropriate, the RD-3 Designed Residence

District with either a new RD-5 Designed

Residence District (which would permit single-

family, two-family and multi-family dwelling

units at a density of 5,000 square feet per unit)

or with the RD-6 Designed Residence District

(which permits single-family, two-family and

multi-family dwelling units at a density of

6,000 square feet per unit).

c. Selectively rezoning properties so as to effect

an overall stabilization of residential density.

2. The City should catalogue its housing stock

(conforming, legally non-conforming, and illegally

non-conforming uses) so as to be able to identify

legally and illegally non-conforming uses.

3. The City should strengthen its enforcement policies so

as to continue to eliminate existing and future zoning

statements, and should be

backed up by research.

(4) The City does not

have the authority to

require construction

standards higher than the

State Building Code. The

appearance of new

buildings is regulated by

Chapter 86. (5)

Satisfactory. City

Council is currently re-

evaluating this matter.

(6) No longer relevant,

since zoning changes

achieved this. (7)

Satisfactory. The

Committee may choose to

focus this element to

specific priority areas of

the City.

Policies:

1.a. Policy achieved. No

longer relevant.

1.b. Policy achieved. No

longer relevant.

1.c. Policy is too broad

in current context. No

longer relevant.

2. Policy has not

received the resources

necessary for

implementation. Past

practices of City record-

keeping makes this task

difficult and time-

consuming.

3. Policy has been

successful regarding

Building Code violations.

Regarding zoning

violations, see comment



and Building Code violations.

4. The City should make sure that its taxing methods do

not unduly encourage conversions to higher density

residential uses.

5. The City should, through its Historic District and

Landmark Overlay Zone and associated policies,

protect its historic homes and provide incentives for

their preservation.

6. The City should require compatible architectural

design throughout the City and should require

architectural consistency within its Historic District

and Landmark Overlay Zone.

7. The City should inventory its undeveloped and

underdeveloped lands for the purpose of developing a

land use plan and zoning which are consistent with its

housing goals and policies.

GOAL 2

Optimum Land Use and Physical Amenity:

The most desirable use of land should be sought based upon

people's needs, locational significance and physical

characteristics. Physical amenities of facilities, utilities and

roads should be rationally supplied to adequately serve the

various land uses.

Policies:

1. Land should be distributed in a compatible

arrangement so that conflicts between various uses are

avoided and so that harmonious land uses are

encouraged to locate near each other. Growth should

be encouraged in and around the Beacon central

business district, rather than spreading out along the

highways of the City and its surrounding area.

2. A sound system of utility services should be provided

for the City, and wherever possible, intermunicipal use

should be encouraged. Provision of an increased

above. Recommend

changing “should

strengthen” to “maintain

its strong enforcement

policies”

4. The planning

consultants will

determine if this question

has been answered

satisfactorily.

5. Policy achieved. The

City Council is currently

re-evaluating City

historic preservation

policy.

6. Policy achieved.

7. This policy is being

implemented through the

planning process

currently under way.

GOAL 2

Satisfactory.

Policies:

1. Satisfactory.

2. Provision of an

increased water supply

has been achieved and

excess capacity of 0.8



public water supply is of first priority concern.

3. An integrated and efficient transportation system

consistent with the overall areawide development

pattern should be provided for to assure the effective

and economic movement of people and goods within

and through Beacon.

To achieve this, a top priority of the Plan is the

connection of the City's business district and its

proposed transportation center to the expressway

network of the area.

GOAL 3

Community Identity and Cohesion:

The gathering of economic, governmental and social

activities into a hierarchy of suburban centers to provide a

greater sense of identity and community is a primary goal of

the Area Development Plan. The purposes of this were to

preserve open space, to economically provide for public

utilities and facilities and to create the advantages of

providing a single place where people living around such a

center could take care of their day-to-day needs.

Policies:

1. Growth should be encouraged in Beacon to strengthen

its existing urban character. The clustering of

residential uses should be related to the central

business district, with higher densities adjacent to the

City's central commercial core and to the proposed

transportation center.

2. Local shopping areas should be maintained, but at a

small enough scale not to detract from or be

competitive with the major commercial center.

3. The central business district should be made more

compact and office uses should be encouraged to

locate adjacent to the central business district. Such a

compact business center should be served by public

transportation.

million gallons currently

exists. See “City

Utilities” Chapter for

more information.

3. Recent improvements

include ferry service to

Newburgh and road

improvements to Route

9D. The plan should

specify whether and how

the integrated system

should include bus lines,

particularly in

connection with the train

station / transportation

center.

GOAL 3

Generally sufficient.

Somewhat redundant in

relation to other goals

and policies already

expressed. Beacon may

be considered a small

urban center rather than

a suburban center; the

Committee will

determine how it chooses

to characterize the City.

Policies:

1. This policy appears to

be somewhat inconsistent

with other goals of the

current plan, which focus

on preserving the

existing character of

neighborhoods and

reducing densities in

areas adjacent to Main

Street. The Committee

should re-evaluate the

existing and allowable

densities in the

residential areas around

the central business

district and the

transportation center.

2. Satisfactory. Small

businesses serving

neighborhoods should be

maintained.



GOAL 4

Open Space and Natural Resource Preservation:

An open space system of sufficient size and locational

qualities must be provided to meet the complete range of

recreational need[s] for the people and to reserve adequate

areas for the protection of water related resources, wild life,

and land forms of particular environmental value.

Policies:

1. Areas of ecological importance such as water bodies,

wetlands, aquifers, slopes, hilltops, and valuable wild

life areas should be preserved through conservation-

type zoning techniques. The rare assets of the City,

such as the Hudson River and Fishkill Creek should be

protected, as should the Hudson Highlands in the

southeast portion of the City.

2. Development density should be reasonably related to

land capabilities with lower densities maintained on

lands least able to support intensive uses.

3. Adequate recreational facilities of various types should

be provided throughout the City in accessible

locations. Special attention should be given to small

local parks, in locations convenient to City residents.

GOAL 5

Public Awareness and Participation:

The use of freedom and opportunity depends heavily upon

adequate information and the ability to participate in local

decision making processes. The identification of the human

consequences of alternative public actions, including

identification of positive social and cultural values to be

preserved, as well as social costs and benefits of alternative

courses of action must receive wide exposure so that those

who are affected have an understanding of such factors and

the opportunity to express their views prior to the decision

making process.

3. A large number of well-

maintained historic

buildings with commercial

uses are located on both

ends of Main Street. This

policy should be re-

evaluated by the

Committee.

GOAL 4

Satisfactory.

Policies:

1. Satisfactory. The

Committee should re-

evaluate the areas

prioritized by this policy

and add any other

important areas.


Committee should decide

if the Plan should identify

these areas specifically.

3. Satisfactory. Specific

recommendations begin

on page 41 of the 1974

plan. The Committee may

wish to update or revise

this list.

GOAL 5

Satisfactory. This is an

excellent statement of the

process that should be

used to develop a new

Plan. Alternative

scenarios, with social

costs and benefits

explicitly presented,

should be included in the

planning process.



Beacon’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, completed in April of 1991, effectively

updated the Comprehensive Plan in a rather profound manner and resulted in numerous

Zoning Map amendments. The Plan was developed in conjunction with other similar

planning and zoning analyses along Fishkill Creek from Wolcott Avenue northerly to the

Town of Fishkill boundary. Together, these planning efforts encompassed a significant

portion of the City. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan contains 44 policy

statements and numerous secondary policy statements, which are found in Section III of

the document. We have reviewed these policy statements and find all of them still

relevant, as the revitalization of the waterfront is still in process.

Policies:

1. Information on planning decisions should be made

available through a wide variety of channels: the local

press and communication systems, the schools, and

through various religious, health, social and club

organizations.

2. Flexibility in City governmental procedures and

institutions should be sought to ensure greater

constructive citizen participation and involvement in

the planning process and to foster leadership in all

groups, especially those neglected in public decision

making because of gaps in organization, leadership,

articulation of values and needs, or economic status.

3. The City should speak for itself through its plan. The

development of genuine local centers of activity and

adequate community and recreational facilities in

residential areas which relate to each other through an

integral open space system can help create a sense of

community and identity where some factors of

isolation and alienation might be minimized and where

a sense of awareness, incentives for participation in

neighborhood decision making processes and

opportunities for interaction with one's neighbor, if

desired, can be maximized.

Policies:

1. The policy should be

updated to include

electronic media as an

element of the existing

communications systems.

The Committee should

evaluate the planning

process to date and

upcoming outreach

events and methods in

relation to this policy.


Committee should

evaluate past, present,

and projected planning

work in light of this

policy.


Committee may choose to

evaluate the perceived

level of opportunities for

positive social

participation in the City

today versus in the past.



Dutchess County Plans

The 1987 Dutchess County Plan, Directions, places Beacon in the regional context as a

small city, second to Poughkeepsie, and the focus of southwestern Dutchess County. The

Plan calls for inter-municipal cooperation regarding sewer and water utilities, and

envisions Beacon’s municipal sewage treatment plant as eventually expanding to serve

the Village of Fishkill and large portions of the Towns of Fishkill, East Fishkill, and

Wappinger. In terms of land use, the Plan recommends the following:

Protection of residential areas from incompatible development.

Renovation of the railroad station and the immediate vicinity.

Redevelopment and protection of the riverfront area.

Revitalization and strengthening of the downtown area.

Adoption and enforcement of strict standards for site and architectural design and

building construction.

Expansion of the economic base.

Dutchess County’s Greenway Connections document, dated March 2000, is in many

respects a plan. The “Settlement Patterns” on page 24 supports close-knit and compact

centers that support central utilities and have a mixture of uses within a five to ten minute

walk of surrounding residential areas, all features of Beacon today. Plans for

transforming Long Dock and connecting the train station and harbor area with Dennings

Point and Madam Brett Park along the Fishkill Creek are also described on page 35. A

section on “Promoting Arts and Tourism” highlights the TALLIX Foundry in Beacon and

the then-pending development of the Dia Center for the Arts. A section on “Enhancing

Rail Connections,” page 39, includes information about a Metro-North feasibility study

of developing a Beacon Line between Beacon, Hopewell Junction, and Brewster, along

the former Housatonic Line. Beacon is also included in a list of communities that could

benefit from transit-oriented infill development around the train station. Greenway

Guides organized around the theme “Strengthening Centers” are all relevant to Beacon’s

current condition and future development. Also, the “Greenway Connections” section

contains relevant environmental principles for the City’s continued development,

including “Connected Habitats,” “Stream Corridor Protection,” “Highways into

Greenways,” and “Wellhead and Aquifer Protection.”

Important Site / Area Plans

Following up on the work of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan of 1990, the Scenic

Hudson Land Trust, the New York State Rivers and Estuaries Center, and the

Metropolitan Transportation Authority have collaborated with the City to initiate

planning processes to revitalize the City’s waterfront and transportation center.



Long Dock

The proposal for Beacon’s Long Dock consists of uniting three abutting parcels totaling

approximately 25 acres and developing a hotel, conference center, restaurants,

community space and boardwalks and parks, pursuant to a development agreement

between The Scenic Hudson Land Trust, Inc. and Foss Group Beacon, LLC. The project

totals approximately 163,110 SF of gross floor area in addition to the existing 4,000 SF

of gross floor area associated with the Red Barn (which is the only existing building to

remain). The proposed project consists of the following components:

Hotel (up to 140 rooms)

Conference Center (10,000 SF)

Restaurants (two restaurants: up to 500 persons served; indoor only 275 seats)

Offices (3,000 SF Phase I, up to 25,000 SF Phase II)

Residential Units (up to 17 2-bdrm units, Phase II)

Red Barn (for community activities, 4,000 SF)

Greenhouse (a retail space to include public restrooms)

Boardwalk and Public Plaza

Passive Recreation Area (called ‘South Meadow’)

Parking Areas

Some additional details regarding the site and its potential and proposed uses can be

found in Section D of Chapter II.

Harbor

The City’s Harbor Advisory Committee has been working with the various stakeholders

of the Long Dock project as well as others to create a Harbor Management Plan. The

Plan includes all of the lands west of the railroad tracks in the City, but focuses

principally on the area between Long Dock and Riverfront Park. Harbor Plans include a

research vessel for the Rivers and Estuaries Center to be docked at Long Dock, as well as

a barge for educational purposes. A building is proposed to house the operating needs of

the Center as well as accommodate the needs of a boat club oriented to the harbor. A

sloop club, separate from the boat club, is planning to provide moorings in the harbor.

The Hudson River Fisheries Trust is also participating in the planning, and is proposing

to offer sailing classes. Cassion Associates is working with the Advisory Committee to

develop a plan.



Transportation Center

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has been engaged in a public planning

and consultation process with the City regarding the development of its lands around the

Beacon station for several years.

The MTA has recently begun improvements to the Beacon station, including the purchase

of a portion of the Dorel property and construction of 365 additional parking spaces on

the new parcel, landscaping and beautification of the existing parking, including tree

plantings, construction of an intermodal plaza adjacent to the station, and construction of

an additional access road to the station.

The MTA’s long term plans, which are still in the conceptual stages and are not

scheduled or funded, feature a parking structure on the south lot, which would be kept to

a low profile and accessed from Beekman Street directly onto the top of the structure.

The structure would accommodate up to 1000 parking spaces, but would result in only

400 new parking spaces, since parking would be removed from the west side of the

tracks. The west side area could be converted through private partnership to relatively

low buildings that do not block views of the harbor, housing water-related commercial

uses and residential uses. A multi-functional gateway facility is also an element in the

MTA’s long term plans for the station.

J:\DOCS2\100\Beacon\City Development Plan\Basic Studies\Intro and Eval2.doc

Inventory and Analysis Land Use, Zoning and Development Potential

City of Beacon Comprehensive Plan (March 2006) II-1

II. LAND USE, ZONING AND

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

A. Existing Land Use

This chapter focuses on the existing types, amounts and locations of land uses in the City

of Beacon. The map, Existing Land Use, shows the existing land uses, including the

locations and concentrations of land use activities throughout the City.

Land use information was classified into standard planning categories of residential and

non-residential uses. The existing land uses in the City were grouped into the following

categories:

Single-Family Residential

Two-Family Residential

Three-Family Residential

Multi-Family Residential

Retail/Service

Office/Professional

Mixed Use

Industrial

Vacant Industrial

Public/Private Institutions and Services

Vacant Institutional

Private Recreation/Open Space

Public Recreation/Open Space

Roads/Utilities

Vacant/Undeveloped

The original planimetric information (i.e., lot lines, etc.) and real property classifications

were obtained from the Dutchess County Office of Real Property Tax. This information

was analyzed, supplemented and updated through field checks and review of the aerial

photography by the City’s planning consultants and City staff. Field checks were made

to verify recent land use changes. In addition, drafts of the land use maps were

coordinated with, and reviewed by City staff.

A summary of the previous and current land uses, acreages and percentage of the total

land area for each category in the City of Beacon are identified in Table II-1, below.



Table II-1: Beacon Land Uses (1960 – 2005)

1960 1970 2005 1960 1970 2005

Single-Family Residential 542 844 17% 27%

Two-Family Residential 72 2%

Three-Family Residential 12 0.4%

Multi-Family Residential 109 4%

Total Residential 407 590 1037 13% 19% 33%

Retail/Service 35 1%

Office/Professional 9 0.3%

Mixed Use 23 1%

Total Commercial 65 49 67 2% 2% 2%

Industrial 159 57 89 5% 2% 3%

Public/Private Institutions and Services 1369 1025 619 45% 33% 20%

Private Recreation/Open Space 140 5%

Public Recreation/Open Space 194 6%

Total Semi-Public/Private 1369 1195 953 45% 38% 31%

Vacant/Undeveloped 991 889 420 32% 28% 14%

Roads/Utilities 265 461 8% 15%

Waterbodies 82 82 82 3% 3% 3%

City-Wide Totals 3073 3127 3109 100% 100% 100%

5%

Percent

13%2%

2% 2%

170

AcresLanduse

40748

65 49

Sources: City Development Plan, City of Beacon, N.Y., July 1962, prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates. City

of Beacon Development Plan, April 1, 1974, prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates. Dutchess County Planning

and Development Department Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database, November 2, 2005.

1. Residential

The residential land uses have been classified as single-family residential, two and

three family residential, and multi-family residential. As of June 2005, residential

land uses comprised approximately 33.3% of the City.

Single-Family Residential

The Single-Family Residential category consists of detached, single-family

dwelling units that are constructed to accommodate year-round residences. This

category contains the largest land use category in the City comprising

approximately 27% of the area in the City.

The Existing Land Use map shows the distribution of single-family residential

housing throughout the City. As can be seen in the figure, the vast majority of



single-family residences are currently located within one-half of a mile from Main

Street, with areas to the northeast and southwest settled at lower densities. The

relative density of single-family development can be surmised from a review of

the Existing Land Use map - the smaller the lot size, the more single-family

residences there are in a given area.

Multiple Residences

The Multiple Residences land use category consists of lands occupied by either:

two-family residences, three-family residences, or lands that contain multiple

residences (e.g., two single-family residences on one lot). Two-family residences

are scattered among the single-family residences, clustered most densely between

Verplank Avenue north of Main Street and Rombout Avenue south of Main Street.

Three-family residences are clustered in the area around the east end of Main

Street. Approximately 2% of the City was occupied by such land uses in 2005.

Multi-Family Residential Development

The Multi-Family Residential Development category includes structures that have

been built or converted into four or more dwelling units, and the various multi-

family developments in the City. These residences are generally distributed

among large parcels on North and South Avenues (Route 9D). Multi-Family

development comprised approximately 4% of the City in 2005.

2. Commercial

Retail / Service

The Retail/Service land use category includes a variety of uses, including: retail

stores and shopping centers; restaurants; motor vehicle sales, hotels, automobile

services and gas stations; and such commercial uses. As shown on the Existing

Land Use map, the majority of the commercial development is concentrated along

the Main Street corridor, with a smaller cluster on Fishkill Avenue (Route 9D).

Such uses comprise 35 acres, approximately 1% of the City.

Office/Professional

This category includes professional offices and banks. Such uses comprise 9

acres, approximately 0.3% of the total land area in the City. Office uses are

generally located on Main Street.



Mixed Use

The Mixed Use land use category includes developments that contain a mixture

of uses such as retail/service and multi-family residential on a single parcel of

land. Such uses occur together on parcels that total approximately 1% of the total

land area of the City.

3. Industrial

The Industrial land use category consists of manufacturing, storage, warehouse

and distribution facilities located within the City. This land use category

comprises 89 acres, 3% of the land area City in 2005. Industrial uses are found

on Main Street west of City Hall and on Fishkill Avenue.

The Vacant Industrial land use category includes lots that have existing industrial

buildings that are vacant and no longer in use. All of the parcels in this category

are located along Fishkill Creek. Table II-1 does not include this category; vacant

industrial properties are included under “Industrial” rather than “Vacant” because

of the existing buildings on the properties.

4. Public Space

Public/Private Institutions and Services

The Public/Private Institution and Services category includes schools and other

educational facilities, hospitals and other health facilities, religious facilities,

cemeteries, police and fire protection facilities. These uses comprise

approximately 20% of the total land area in the City. These land uses are

distributed fairly evenly throughout the City.

The Vacant Institutional land use category is comprised of open areas on

currently partially developed Institutional sites, primarily the Fishkill

Correctional Facility.

Public Recreation/Open Space

The Public Recreation/Open Space category includes active State and local parks

and community recreational areas such as playing fields and courts. These

community uses comprise 194 acres of the total land area in the City, or 6%.

Memorial Park and Dennings Point State Park are the largest. The community



Park off of Wolcott Avenue and the Riverfront Park are smaller, more centrally

located parks.

Private Recreation/Open Space

Private recreation includes passive parks, homeowners association open space

and specifically includes Southern Dutchess Country Club near Interstate 84,

Hammond Field, Mount Beacon Park and Madam Brett Park. Approximately

140 acres (5%) of the City constitutes this land use category.

Roads/Utilities

Roads and utilities comprise approximately 461 acres (15%) of the City. A large

portion of this area includes the Metro-North Railroad right-of-way along the

Hudson River and the railroad right-of-way along Fishkill Creek, the sewage

transfer center, the closed landfill site, the land south of Interstate-84 owned by

the New York State Bridge Authority and a number of other smaller publicly-

owned utility sites throughout the City.

5. Vacant Land

This category includes the vacant parcels in the City which are not in use or

without permanent improvements. Approximately 14% of the total land area in

the City fits into the Vacant land use category. As shown on the Existing land

Use map, there are only a few large vacant properties located throughout the City.

Specifically, the majority of the vacant land consists of the following properties:

the proposed Long Dock Beacon site between the railroad tracks and the Hudson

River, the Hiddenbrooke Property in the northeast portion of the City as well as

the land surrounding the Fairview Cemetery, a couple lots south of City Hall,

land south of DIA Beacon, land south of the closed landfill and adjacent to a

vacant industrial site, and the Craig House site in the southern part of the City.

Analysis of the potential future development of such properties, along with under-

developed parcels, is a critical part of the comprehensive planning process.

Information on oversized / under-developed parcels is provided in Section D of

this chapter, “Development Potential Analysis.”



Land Use: 1960

Commercial

2.1%

Waterbodies

2.7%

Undeveloped

32.2%

Public/Semi-

Public

44.5%Residential

13.2%

Industrial

5.2%

B. Land Use Change

Table II-1 and Figures II-1 through II-4 illustrate changes in land use in the City of

Beacon over the last 45 years. Figures II-1 through II-3 display the land use

characteristics within the designated year. The table at the beginning of the chapter

presents the City’s land use characteristics at the three different times (the years 1960,

1970 and 2005). Note that the time periods between the land use data analyzed in the

City’s Development Plans differ in length, with 10 years between 1960 and 1970 and 35

years between 1970 and 2005. Figure II-4 graphically illustrates the relative changes in

land use in the City over this time period.

1. Land Use - 1960

Figure II-1 Figure II-1 Land Use,

1960 shows the land use

characteristics of the City

in the year 1960.

Approximately one-third

of the City (i.e., 33%)

was undeveloped in 1960.

Another 45% of the land

area was occupied by

public and semi-public

uses. Approximately

13% was occupied by

residential uses.

Approximately 2% of the City was occupied by commercial uses and 5% was

occupied by industrial uses. The source of the 1960 land use data was the City

Development Plan for the City of Beacon, N.Y., prepared by Frederick P. Clark

Associates, July 1962. Public and Semi-Public land use refers to Public/Private

Institutions and Services, Private Recreation/Open Space and Public

Recreation/Open Space.



Land Use: 1970

Roads/Utilities

8.5%

Waterbodies

2.6%

Commercial

1.6%

Undeveloped

28.4%

Public/Semi-

Public

38.2%

Residential

18.9%

Industrial

1.8%

2. Land Use - 1970

Figure II-2

Figure II-2, Land Use,

1970, illustrates the way

land was used in the City

in 1970. Lands occupied

by public and semi-public

uses occupied 38% of the

City’s land area. The

amount of the City’s land

area occupied by

residential uses, rose from

13% in 1960 to 19%

(17% was occupied by

single-family residential

uses) while the amount

occupied by commercial uses remained approximately 2%. The amount of

industrial land use declined from 5% to 2%. The source of the 1970 land use data

was the City of Beacon Development Plan, prepared by Frederick P. Clark

Associates, April 1974. Public and Semi-Public land use refers to Public/Private

Institutions and Services, Private Recreation/Open Space and Public

Recreation/Open Space.

The significant changes in land uses in the City between 1960 and 1970 (a 10-year

period) are as follows:

° The 183 acre increase in residential land area, from 13% to 19% (a 38%

increase in total acres), was the only increase in acres experienced during this

time period. This equaled an average per annum increase of 4% (18.3 acres

per year) compared to the extent of such development in 1960.

° The amount of undeveloped land decreased from 991 acres to 889 acres

between 1960 and 1970. This represented a decrease of 10% based on the

amount of undeveloped land in 1960.

° The amount of commercial land area remained approximately the same

between 1960 and 1970 whereas Industrial land uses decreased by

approximately 102 acres (64%).



Land Use: 2005

Roads/Utilities

14.8%Commercial

2.2%Waterbodies

2.6%

Public/Semi-

Public

30.7%

Undeveloped

13.5%

Residential

33.4%

Industrial

2.9%

3. Land Use - 2005

Figure II-3 Figure II-3, Land Use,

2005, shows the land use

characteristics of the City

in the year 2005. As

shown in that area of the

table, the largest single

land use category in the

City is “Residential” land

use category, which

accounts for one-third of

the land area of the City.

Residential land use area

surpassed the amount of

undeveloped land in the

City between 1970 and 2005. The amount of undeveloped land in the City

decreased to 14% of the City by 2005 (compared to 28% in 1970 and 32% in

1960). The amount of public/semi-public land use dropped to 31% of the City

from 38% in 1970 and 45% in 1960. Commercial land use increased from 1970 to

2005 by 18 acres (a 37% increase) to 67 acres, which was basically the same

acreage that was in commercial use in 1960. Industrial land use increased

approximately 32 acres (a 56% increase) from 1970 to 2005. Please refer to Table

II-1 for a summary of the land use characteristics described herein.

The significant changes in land uses in the City between 1970 and 2005 (a 35-year

period) are as follows:

° The 302 acre (56%) increase in single-family residential land area was the

largest increase in acres experienced during this time period, followed by the

145 acre (300%) increase in land area used for multiple residences and multi-

family (four or more residences per lot) residential use.

° The amount of undeveloped land decreased by 469 acres (53%) between 1970

and 2005. This equates to an average decrease of 13.4 acres of undeveloped

land per year during this time period.

° The average yearly amount of land converted to residential use increased from

18.3 acres per year between 1960 and 1970 to 12.8 acres per year between

1970 and 2005. Specifically, the average amount of land converted to single-

family residential use between 1970 and 2005 was 8.6 acres per year. The



amount of land converted to multiple residences and multi-family residential

during the same period was 4.1 acres per year.

° The amount of industrial land in the City increased between 1970 and 2005.

The 32 acre increase in this land use category during this period raised the

industrial land use from 2% to 3% (a 56% increase) of the total City land area.

° The overall amount of public/semi-public lands decreased by 242 acres, from

45% to 38%, (a 20% decrease) of the City land area. This equates to an

average decrease of 6.9 acres of public/semi-public land per year from 1970 to

2005.

Figure II-4: Existing Land Use (1960, 1970, 2005) – City of Beacon, New York

Undevelo

ped

Wate

rbodie

s

Resid

entia

l

Public

/Sem

i-P

ublic

Industr

ial

Com

merc

ial

1960

1970

2005

420

82

1037

953

8967

889

82

590

1195

5749

991

82

407

1369

159

65

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Acres

Land Use

Year

1960

1970

2005



C. Existing Zoning

Table II-2 below contains a summary of the existing zoning in the City of Beacon and the

amount and percent of land area associated with each zoning district. The Zoning

Districts are separated into Residential and Non-Residential categories. Residential

zoning comprises 79% of the City compared to 21% of the City that is zoned Non-

Residential.

Table II-2_: Existing Zoning, City of Beacon, December 2005

Zoning District

Total Land Area

(Acres)

Percent of

City (%)

R1-120 49.2 2%

R1-80 287.2 10%

R1-40 771.1 28%

R1-20 131.2 5%

R1-10 281.8 10%

R1-7.5 283.1 10%

R1-5 266.7 10%

RD-6 56.2 2%

RD-5 24.4 1%

RD-4 2.9 0.1%

RD-3 32.0 1%

RD-1.8 20.2 1%

Sub-Total Residential 2206.0 79%

PB 18.9 1%

OB 10.9 0.4%

LB 35.9 1%

CB 30.2 1%

GB 10.5 0.4%

LI 163.1 6%

HI 72.4 3%

WD 56.2 2%

WP 196.0 7%

Sub-Total Non-Residential 594.1 21%

City-Wide Total 2,800.1 100%

Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates

Note: The land areas shown do not include roadways or the area comprised of the Fishkill

Creek. Land areas were calculated based on total parcel areas within each zoning district.

The additional roadway and Fishkill Creek areas comprise approximately 300 acres.



D. Development Potential Analysis

A development potential analysis identifies the potential location and amount of

additional development possible according to the land use regulations of a community.

This analysis represents an important step in evaluating the possible long-term

implications of Beacon’s existing zoning and other land use regulations. The analysis

does not, in any way, recommend the development of the City according to the scenarios

presented herein. Rather, the analysis allows a consideration of what the impact would

be if the City was built out to the maximum extent permitted by the laws currently in

place.

The Development Potential Analysis was divided into three groups:

1. The large undeveloped or underdeveloped properties in Beacon, identified by

numbers on the Study Areas map, and detailed in a table in the Appendix.

2. The industrial properties with vacant buildings and/or vacant land, identified by

letters on the Study Areas map, and detailed in a table in the Appendix.

3. The area around Main Street, which is shown on the Study Areas map and detailed

in a table in the Appendix.

A summary of the methods and results of the Development Potential Analysis for the

City of Beacon is provided below.

Large Undeveloped Properties and Vacant Industrial Properties

Using the land use map, an accumulated general knowledge of the City, and records of

the New York State Office of Real Property Services, the study identified all of the

properties capable of being developed in a manner that would result in at least 5 new

housing units, or significant areas of new or (for the vacant industrial properties)

renovated commercial space (see Study Areas map and Table X1, below). Properties in

recreational use that are owned by the City or the State, as well as other government-

owned properties such as the prison, the sewage treatment facility, and school properties

were considered to be undevelopable. On the other hand, privately-owned recreational

properties, such as the property owned by the Southern Dutchess Country Club, were

considered, for the purposes of this study, to be developable.

Once the lots are identified, the next step was to identify the factors that would affect the

development potential of each lot. The factors included:

City zoning classification;

City zoning regulations regarding parking requirements for various types of uses;

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands (DEC

wetlands) and the adjacent 100-foot regulated buffer;



Waterbodies, including the Fishkill River and the Dry Brook, including DEC

control over stream beds and banks, or 50-foot buffer areas where stream banks

cannot be identified;

Wetlands identified on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI wetlands);

Slopes in excess of 25%

Method of Analysis

The development potential of each single-family zoned lot selected in the manner

described above was calculated by subtracting 15 percent of gross lot area to account for

infrastructure (including roads and stormwater management systems), and for all lots by

subtracting for areas with steep slopes and wetlands and buffers, when applicable. The

City does not currently require buffers for wetlands, so only those properties with

wetlands or watercourses regulated by the DEC had land subtracted from gross lot area

for wetland buffers. Stormwater management infrastructure was not deducted from lot

area for lots allowing multi-family or commercial uses, since it is at least potentially

feasible to locate these facilities underground.

For the parcels zoned single-family residential, the remaining net developable lot area

was then divided by the minimum lot area of the respective district in which the property

is located to yield the estimated number of total lots and dwelling units on the properties

that were evaluated. Where properties have been or are currently in the development

process before the City’s Planning Board, actual proposed numbers of lots and units are

also included.

For parcels zoned for commercial uses, the net lot area was divided by 3.05, which is a

figure derived from an equation that assumed nearly total coverage of the property with

an on-site minimally landscaped parking area and a three story building of maximum size

according to the floor area ratio. The equation also used an average parking lot size of

545 square feet per parking space, and a parking requirement based on the more intense

types of commercial uses (such as offices and retail), which require one parking space for

every 200 square feet of floor area. The equation was:

(lot size) = (parking area) + (square foot floor area) / 3 , where

parking area = ((square foot floor area) / 200) * 545 and where

lot size is given for each lot based on previous calculations (net lot area) and

square foot floor area was the unknown variable for each lot.



Parcels zoned for multi-family uses employed the same method, but adjusted the equation

regarding parking area calculations to divide the square foot floor area by one parking

space for each 900 square feet of building area (a rough approximation of an average-size

apartment) plus a ½ parking space for each apartment with an assumed average of two

bedrooms, which was then multiplied by 545 square feet for each parking space. These

calculations reflect the parking spaces required by City Code.

The development potential analysis was facilitated by the use of Geographic Information

Systems (GIS) technology. The GIS links different sources of geographic data, such as

the City’s lot line base map and zoning map with environmental data such as the location

of wetlands and steep slopes. The use of GIS allowed the consideration of zoning

requirements, lot sizes, and environmental considerations on a parcel-by-parcel basis for

more precise and realistic measurements than would have been available in the past.

Results of Calculations and Analysis

The development potential of the large undeveloped parcels in Beacon is substantial, with

approximately 1,000 new residential units possible, and over 500,000 square feet of

additional commercial building area. A total of approximately 164 residential units have

already been proposed in these areas, and 167,100 square feet of commercial space has

been proposed (at Long Dock). Since the total of all the large undeveloped parcels is

approximately 425 acres, it is fairly likely that this potential development – particularly

the residential portion of it- will occur unless land use regulations are changed.

The large vacant and underutilized industrial properties also have significant

development potential, although the maximum developable floor area is no greater for the

total of these lots than the total of existing building floor areas. In general, the existing

buildings exceed the floor areas that would be permitted under current zoning and

parking regulations. The development potential for these properties includes

approximately 750,000 square feet of building space, and up to 1,827 residential units.

(The potential building space could be used for residential purposes or for other, non-

residential purposes. The development potential for these properties is not the sum of the

two.) With a total of 276 residential units and approximately 330,000 square feet of

building area currently proposed for the properties in this group, the likelihood of the

future redevelopment of these properties within the next 10 to 20 years is high. Site-

specific factors, such as the results of environmental testing and brownfield funding

sources will influence the rate of development of these properties.

Main Street Area

The development potential of properties in the Main Street Study Area was calculated

according to the relationship between the size of the existing structures on each property

and the maximum size structure permitted by the Central Business District regulations.



Since front setbacks are not required and side and rear setbacks are only required if

adjacent to residential districts, 100 percent of the area of most lots could theoretically be

developed. The significant constraints are: (1) the maximum floor area ratio of 2

(meaning a building’s floor area can be up to twice the lot area) and (2) parking

requirements according to use. There are no significant environmental constraints, such

as steep slopes or wetlands, along Main Street. For Main Street, two types of parking

requirements were used – one for commercial uses of the more intense types (such as

office or retail) at one parking space per 200 square feet of building floor area; and one

for residential uses based on the maximum number of residential units permitted in the

District (which allows a maximum of one unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area) which

translates to one unit for every 2,000 square feet of potential residential area. Assuming

an apartment of this size could be a 3-bedroom apartment, 1.75 parking spaces per

apartment was calculated. While stormwater management requirements are also a

potential constraint on the maximum development potential of a lot, in order to estimate

the fullest extent of development possible, it was assumed that stormwater facilities could

be located underground.

The calculations provided by the development potential analysis are just a first step in

determining the actual development potential of an area. A determination of what is

theoretically possible under existing regulations does not address the likelihood of a

collection of individual property owners actually investing in the kind of improvements

that would bring about maximum levels of development on multiple properties. These

economic realities and historical trends in the rate of development on Main Street are

discussed in the “Analysis of Results” section below.

Two Scenarios

Two scenarios were developed to project the effect of the ‘full build-out’ of Main Street.

In the first scenario, 100 percent of the uses along Main Street were calculated as

commercial, including all floors of each building. This generated a parking requirement

well beyond the capacity of the PB (Business Off-Street Parking) District. Since

residential uses require considerably less parking per square foot of building area, and

since one of the principles of creating vibrant downtown districts is including significant

amounts of residential space, a second scenario was generated where all buildings are

constructed to maximum capacity, but the second and third floors are used entirely for

residential purposes. This scenario, which nearly maximizes residential uses to the extent

allowed in the District, also generated a need (according to City parking standards) for

parking that exceeds the capacity of the area. Therefore, a third scenario in which

commercial uses occupied two-thirds of building area and residential uses one-third was

judged to be superfluous for the purposes of the exercise, which is to determine the

maximum development possible and the associated impacts of the new development.



Method of Analysis

The development potential of each lot on Main Street was estimated by calculating the

total area of each lot and multiplying that figure by a factor of 2 (the maximum floor

area ratio for the CB District). Total building floor area was calculated by estimating the

building footprint using GIS and aerial photography, and then by multiplying the

building footprint area by the number of floors for each building, which was determined

through field work.

Under the ‘Existing Conditions’ section, the parking spaces that would be required by

existing City Code were calculated assuming one parking space for every 200 square

feet of first floor area, and 1½ parking spaces for every 900 square feet of floor area

above the first floor. These calculations were not adjusted according to the actual uses

occurring on each property, but rather were general in nature in order to establish a

collective benchmark for the entire existing condition of Main Street. The lot area not

covered by the building was calculated under the column titled “Area Available for

Parking.” This is not, of course, a recommendation to use all outdoor areas on Main

Street for parking, but rather an important step in determining the existing conditions

regarding a major development constraint.

Scenario 1, which assumed 100 percent commercial uses (retail, service businesses, and

offices) and three-story buildings for all of Main Street, calculated the total building

area, lot area available for parking, parking spaces and parking area of each property, as

well as the grand total of these. Then these figures were compared with existing

conditions to estimate the additional floor area, loss of lot area available for parking,

additional required parking spaces, and additional parking area that could occur beyond

what is already existing.

Scenario 2 followed the same methods of Scenario 1, except that the total floor area was

divided into two uses: two-thirds of the maximum floor area was considered residential

(the top two floors) and one-third was considered commercial. Since the building

envelopes of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are identical, lot area available for parking is the

same in each scenario. The number of required parking spaces, however, is considerably

different, due to the lower number of parking spaces required per square foot of

residential floor space. Total lot area was divided by 1,500 square feet per residential

unit, rounding down for fractions. In the section of the table titled “Additional

(Excluding Existing)” the scenario was compared with existing conditions as if the uses

of existing properties were divided in the same way, with commercial on the first floor

and residential on any floors that may be above that. This broad assumption was

necessary to arrive at a generalized figure comparing the total effects of the build-out of

this scenario with existing conditions.



Parking Requirements

The parking requirements described in the City Code generally require each lot to

provide its own off-street parking on-site, but also allow businesses located within the

Parking Overlay District – which covers the entire CB (Central Business) District – to

pay a fee to the City in lieu of providing parking on-site. The Code also allows the

conveyance of land to the City for the same purposes, as well as parking on an adjoining

lot with sufficient legal arrangements preserving the parking arrangement. Therefore,

parking requirements do not constrain the development potential of an individual lot on

Main Street, but the entire area faces a collective constraint of providing enough parking

for the total of all of the uses of the area.

The PB (Business Off-Street Parking) District currently provides a total of approximately

434 off-street parking spaces, which consumes approximately 190,000 square feet of land

area. An additional 740,000 square feet of non-parking developed area remains within

the district, with the numerous existing land uses detailed above. The PB District is

approximately 825,000 square feet (19 acres) in area and presently consists of a mix of

uses, including one office use, three retail or service uses, and 83 lots with residential

uses, totaling approximately 116 residential units. The District also includes vacant lots,

5 of which are devoted to parking uses. Some lots also run continuously through both the

CB and the PB districts, and parking is often found in the rear portion of these lots. The

District allows for uses typical of a residential zone or business parking.

The CB (Central Business) District currently provides a total of approximately 203

parking spaces in public and patron parking lots (approximately 183,000 square feet),

plus 263 on-street parking spaces. These spaces combined with those parking spaces in

the PB District add up to 900 parking spaces and 373,000 square feet.

An analysis of parking must also take into account existing and potential parking areas

within the CB District. There are 26 existing lots in the CB District without buildings on

them, comprising 190,000 square feet. Many of these lots are currently used for parking.

If Main Street were developed to its fullest, approximately two-thirds of this area would

be covered by buildings, resulting in a loss of 127,000 square feet of potential parking

area. Also, most existing buildings in the CB District do not completely cover the lots,

with approximately 790,000 square feet of undeveloped land area (mostly in back yards)

in parcels that also contain buildings. Currently, due to a fragmented development

pattern at the rear of these lots, and due to the lack of demand for parking, most of this

land area is not used for parking. Under either of the two scenarios, up to one-third of

each lot would still be available for parking. Due to design and layout considerations,

perhaps a maximum of two-thirds of this area could actually be used for parking. These

parking areas would total 320,000 square feet.



The amount of parking that would be required of the existing buildings if they were all

built according to today’s City Code would be approximately 3,123 off-street parking

spaces, which would require between 1.25 million and 1.7 million square feet of parking

area, depending upon the amount of landscaping required and the efficiency of the layout.

The existing 900 parking spaces are 2,223 parking spaces short of what would currently

be required. In terms of percentages, the parking currently provided represents

approximately 29 percent of what would be required by City Code.

The total parking area that could theoretically be provided under both scenarios would be

approximately 1,145,000 square feet, consisting of the 825,000 square feet in the PB

District and 320,000 square feet in the CB District. This represents 870,000 square feet

of potential new parking area, consisting of 130,000 square feet in the CB District and

740,000 square feet in the PB District. Scenario 1 would require approximately 14,700

parking spaces in the downtown area, which would consume between 5.9 million and 8

million square feet, depending on the amount of landscaping required in the parking

areas, and the level of layout efficiency achievable. Scenario 2 would require

approximately 6,500 parking spaces, which would consume between 2.6 million and 3.5

million square feet of land for parking areas.

All available surface parking areas, including the back yard areas within the CB District

and the entire PB (Business Off-Street Parking) District area would be completely

consumed by surface parking (and the associated landscaping required) at between 18

and 25 percent of full build-out of Scenario 1, and between 55 and 75 percent of full

build-out of Scenario 2. If some or all of the area of the PB District were to be converted

to surface parking, this would reduce the net residential and non-residential building

areas by the amount currently existing in the District. This development potential model

does not attempt to estimate additional development in this area if developed to the

maximum extent allowed. If structured parking were introduced, the development

potential of Main Street would also increase beyond the percentages stated above. This

analysis does not attempt to estimate the additional development potential of Main Street

if one or more parking structures were introduced, since these do not appear to be

permitted uses within the District.

Results of Calculations

The land along Beacon’s Main Street, zoned CB (Central Business) currently supports

buildings with approximately 890,000 square feet of floor area. The floor area could be

expanded to nearly 3 million square feet under existing zoning. Therefore, the built

environment of Beacon’s Main Street could theoretically triple in size, if parking were

not a consideration.

But parking considerations ultimately limit what is possible to develop on Main Street.

As discussed above, both Scenario 1 (100 percent commercial uses) and Scenario 2 (one-



third commercial and two-thirds residential) would run out of the parking area required

by City Code at between 18 and 72 percent of potential additional building area.

Under Scenario 1, the maximum floor area that could be developed is approximately

508,000 square feet. Depending on the amount of landscaping required by the City for

parking areas and the efficiency of the lot layout, the figure may be lower, at 373,000

square feet. For more detailed results, please see the table in the appendix.

Under Scenario 2, the maximum floor area that could be developed would be 1,568,000

square feet, which would consist of approximately 390,000 square feet of commercial

space and 1,178,000 square feet of residential space. The additional residential space

would translate into 521 additional residential units, using the density allowed by the

RMF-1.5, which is what is required in the CB District. This works out to 2,000 square-

foot minimum sized apartments. Again, depending on the amount of landscaping

required by the City and the efficiency of the lot layout, these figures may be less: the

total square footage could be as low as 1,151,000 square feet, which would break down to

286,000 square feet of commercial uses and 865,000 square feet of residential uses, and

383 new apartments. For more detailed results, please see the table in the appendix.

Because these calculations examine only theoretical maximums and not likely futures in

the near term, the development potential analysis does not attempt to study the impacts of

the potential new development. Impacts would include additional vehicles on the

roadways and, under Scenario 2, additional population.

Analysis of Results

We feel that this study shows that Beacon’s Main Street has considerable development

potential, but we would caution against interpreting this potential as a prediction.

Because all but 26 of the 184 properties in this study area are developed with buildings,

and because most lots in the District are relatively small and narrow, most properties

would be very costly to develop to the fullest extent permitted by zoning. Furthermore,

only four new buildings have been constructed on Main Street in the past 25 years, and

few if any additions have been constructed during the same time period.

The buildings constructed on Main Street since 1981 include:

297 Main Street, on the corner of Brett and Main (2 buildings that total 3,737

square feet)

381-391 Main Street, on the corner of Veterans Place and Main (1 building with

16,500 square feet)

340 Main Street, on the corner of Eliza and Main (1 building with 7,414 square

feet)

403 Main Street, on the corner of Teller Avenue and Main (1 building with 1,591

square feet)



Construction on Main Street is certainly occurring, but the focus has been on renovations

and alterations of existing structures. The Building Department reports that there were 27

significant building permits issued in 2005 for properties on Main Street, ranging from

several thousand dollars of work to approximately 1 million dollars invested. The

Building Department estimates that more than half of the buildings on Main Street have

been renovated within the last decade. This level of investment in improvements of real

property on Main Street exceeds that of the past several decades. Currently, there are

only 6 to 8 vacant properties that are not currently being actively used or renovated on

Main Street. If this trend were to continue, it is possible that developers would have

sufficient incentive to engage in new construction projects within the District, ranging

from additions to demolitions and reconstruction.

In conclusion, we feel that it is reasonable to expect within the next 20 to 25 years as

much as three times the development that occurred on Main Street in the past 25 years.

This would be approximately 87,000 square feet of new building floor area. This rate of

development is highly dependent on local and regional economic factors, including the

population and income levels of households in local and regional market areas, the fate of

competing regional commercial centers, and other factors. We feel that, in spite of the

large theoretical development potential of Main Street, the City has sufficient control of

development through the Environmental Quality Review process, and through the option

to review and update zoning regulations as local conditions change.

Summary – Combined Development Potential of All Study Areas

The development potential of all of the study areas combined is 3,365 new residential

units and 1.8 million square feet of non-residential building floor area. It should be noted

that these two figures are generally mutually exclusive regarding the Main Street study

area and the Vacant Industrial areas, as well as three commercially zoned properties in

the study area containing large undeveloped parcels. This means that the non-residential

building floor areas calculated for these areas would apply only if these areas were

developed wholly for non-residential purposes, and vice-versa. Since a mix of uses in

each study area is more likely, the maximum development potential of a mix both

residential and non-residential uses is approximately 2,000 residential units and 1 million

square feet of non-residential building floor area. Please refer to the tables on the next

page for an itemization of these totals by study area, and a comparison with existing and

proposed units and building areas.



City of Beacon Development Potential : Summary Table 1

Gross

Area

(acres)

Net

Area

(acres)

Potential #

of New

Residential

Units

Proposed #

of

Residential

Units

Potential

Non -

Residential

Area (SF)

Proposed

Building

Area

(SF)

Existing

Building

Area

(SF)

Main Street Area 34 34 521 0 508,000 0 891,082

Vacant Industrial Areas 63 52 1,827 276 745,519 331,865 787,465

Large Undeveloped Lots 425 313 1,017 164 589,500 167,100 173,575

TOTALS 522 399 3,365 440 1,843,019 498,965 1,852,122

City of Beacon Development Potential :

Combined Commercial and Residential

Development: Summary Table 2

Potential #

of New

Residential

Units

Potential

New Non -

Residential

Area (SF)

Main Street Area 521 390,000

Vacant Industrial

Areas 914 372,760

Large Undeveloped

Lots 713 294,750

TOTALS 2,148 1,057,510

Finally, we would again caution against interpreting these calculations as predictions.

Due to the small lot sizes and inherent costs of development in the Main Street area, we

do not expect this area to grow according to its theoretical potential. On the other hand,

proposals regarding vacant industrial areas and the steady development of other large

undeveloped parcels suggest that a significant portion of the development potential of

these areas may be realized in the foreseeable future.

J:\DOCS2\100\Beacon\City Development Plan\Basic Studies\Land Use-jas.doc

Inventory and Analysis Traffic Circulation and Parking Facilities

City of Beacon Comprehensive Plan (March 2006) III-1

III. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND PARKING FACILITITES

A. Traffic Circulation Frederick P. Clark Associates has conducted a review of traffic conditions along the Main Street Corridor. As part of this effort, we conducted an inventory of Main Street and the intersecting roadways and performed a general analysis of traffic and circulation in and around the Main Street Business District. Main Street, also designated Business Route 52, provides access to commercial, retail and residential properties. Main Street begins at the intersection of North Avenue and Wolcott Avenue, also designated Route 9D, and extends to the east before terminating at a dead end north of Herbert Street. It provides two travel lanes, a double yellow centerline, curbs and on-street parking. The posted speed limit for the City of Beacon is 30 miles per hour. A majority of the roadways intersecting with Main Street are unsignalized with the exception of three locations. The following intersections with Main Street are controlled with traffic signals; North Avenue/Wolcott Avenue (Route 9D), Chestnut Street and Fishkill Avenue/Teller Avenue. The remaining intersections are two-way stop sign controlled with right-of-way provided to Main Street. The unsignalized intersections are typically one-way streets and all permit on-street parking. The following is an inventory of all roadways intersecting with Main Street; North Avenue/Wolcott Avenue (Route 9D) – two-way, signalized intersections with

left turns lanes provided on the northbound and southbound approaches and a designated right turn lane on the westbound approach of Main Street;

South Avenue – two-way, unsignalized, “T”-type intersection with signage prohibiting left turn movements onto Main Street;

Cross Street – one-way northbound, unsignalized “T”-type intersection; Cliff Street - one-way southbound, unsignalized “T”-type intersection; Willow Street – two-way, unsignalized “T”-type intersection; Digger Phelps Court - one-way northbound, unsignalized “T”-type intersection; Elm Street - one-way northbound, unsignalized intersection; Walnut Street - one-way southbound, unsignalized intersection; Brett Street - one-way northbound, unsignalized intersection; Ceder Street - one-way northbound and one-way southbound, unsignalized

intersection;



Chestnut Street – two-way, signalized intersection; Eliza Street - one-way northbound, unsignalized “T”-type intersection; Veterans Place - two-way, unsignalized, “T”-type intersection; Fishkill Avenue/Teller Avenue – two-way, signalized intersection; Schenck Avenue - two-way, unsignalized, “T”-type intersection; Tioronda Avenue - two-way, unsignalized, “T”-type intersection; Churchill - two-way, unsignalized, “T”-type intersection; South Street - one-way eastbound, unsignalized “T”-type intersection; North Street - one-way eastbound, unsignalized “T”-type intersection; East Main Street – two-way, unsignalized “T” type intersection with small traffic

circle created by ground-mounted yellow beacon; Verplanck Avenue - two-way, unsignalized “T” type intersection; Ackerman Street - two-way, unsignalized “T” type intersection; and Herbert Street - two-way, unsignalized “T” type intersection with additional STOP

sign directed toward the southbound approach of Main Street. The Beacon Shuttle provides service along the full length of Main Street. The Shuttle is part of the Dutchess County LOOP Bus System and provides service throughout the day on Saturdays and Sundays from the downtown area to the Metro-North Train Station. The time schedule for the Shuttle is coordinated with the arrival and departure times of the Metro-North Train Schedule. At most Shuttle stop locations, the shuttle will stop 13 times during the day. Field observations during the weekday peak periods identify acceptable levels of traffic congestion and delays. These delays are considered typical for a downtown area. At the signalized intersections, vehicle queues of three to four vehicles were routinely observed. These queues cleared without difficulty during the green phase. The attached figure, titled Traffic Circulation Plan, presents the street characteristics of Main Street and the adjacent roadways. The figure identifies traffic control, lane designations and roadway orientations and is provided at the end of this report.



B. Parking Facilities An inventory was conducted of all parking facilities along the full length of Main Street. Parking facilities were categorized by three general definitions; On-street Parking, Municipal Parking and Private or Patron Parking (provided in private parking lots along Main Street). All parking facilities are free of charge. The on-street parking inventory was limited to those marked parking spaces along Main Street. On-street parking regulations indicated a 2-hour time limit from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and specified time periods when no parking was permitted, typically 4:00 AM to 9:00 AM on Tuesdays and Fridays or Mondays and Thursdays. An inventory of parking availability on adjacent side streets was not included as part of the analysis. Ten municipal parking lots were identified in the immediate vicinity of Main Street. Typically, all city-owned parking lots permit 24-hour parking unless otherwise marked. In addition to the municipal lots designated along Main Street, an inventory was conducted on municipal lots located on Church Street, Henry Street and Van Nydeck Avenue. The angled parking spaces located along Church Street and Henry Street were included as part of the inventory for the adjacent lots. Private or Patron Parking facilities were identified for the significant developments along the corridor. These locations include the Beacon Center, the Hudson River Community Health Center, Key Foods Supermarket, and various bank, retail and restaurant parking lots. These facilities are typically limited to patron parking only; however, a few facilities, such as the Beacon Center and the Hudson River Community Health Center, permit free parking on weekends and holidays. The following table and figure titled Parking Facilities Plan (provided at the end of this report) presents a summary of the parking facilities along Main Street. The table identifies the number of spaces available by facility type and zone. The zone designations are CB for Central Business District and PB for Business Off-Street Parking District. The figure identifies the location of the parking facilities and the number of on-street parking spaces provided on a block by block basis.

Main Street Parking Inventory Parking Spaces Available

Parking Facility CB Zone PB Zone Total Main Street On-Street Parking 263 -- 263 Municipal Parking Lots 66 315 381 Public Parking/Patron Parking Lots 137 119 256 Total Parking Spaces 466 434 900



In addition to the parking inventory, Frederick P. Clark Associates has conducted an informal survey of parking utilization. The survey was conducted on Monday, February 27, 2006, during the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. The survey identified the number of occupied parking spaces by the categories previous identified. A summary of the parking survey is provided in the following table.

Main Street Parking Utilization Survey Spaces Occupied (Percent of Total)

Parking Facility CB Zone PB Zone Total Main Street On-Street Parking 160 (61%) -- 160 (61%) Municipal Parking Lots 36 (55%) 160 (51%) 196 (51%) Private Parking/Patron Parking Lots 71 (52%) 44 (37%) 115 (45%) Total 267 (57%) 204 (47%) 471 (52%)

The results of the survey indicate approximately 61 percent of the on-street parking spaces were utilized. In addition, 51 percent of the total municipal parking lots and 45 percent of the private parking lots were occupied at the time of the survey. Although the downtown area does not appear to be fully developed, those businesses and residential developments are generating a significant level of parking activity. Field observations indicated on-street parking activity is distributed evenly over the length of the corridor with a slightly greater level of activity at the east end of Main Street. J:\DOCS2\100\Beacon\City Development Plan\Basic Studies\Traffic and Parking.doc

Inventory and Analysis Demographics and Housing

City of Beacon Comprehensive Plan (March 2006) IV-1

IV. DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING

A. General Population Characteristics

1. Population Trends

The population of the City of Beacon has remained relatively stable over the past 50

years, while the population of Dutchess County has grown steadily, doubling in 50

years, from approximately 140,000 persons in 1950 to approximately 280,000 in 2000.

The City’s population reached a high point in 1950 with approximately 14,000 people at

about the same time that Poughkeepsie and Newburgh reached their highest population

marks (see Figure IV-1 below). Meanwhile, rural areas such as Wappinger and Fishkill

grew rapidly due to improvements in automobile transportation. While Poughkeepsie

and Newburg lost over 10,000 residents each in the 30 years between 1950 and 1980,

Beacon’s population dropped just slightly, reaching a population of approximately

13,000 in 1980. Since then, the City’s population has gradually rebounded, and is now

approaching the 14,000 mark, with a count of 13,839 persons in the 2000 Census.

Figure IV-1: Population Change 1920 – 2000:

City of Beacon and Surrounding Communities

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Popula

tion

City of Beacon

City of Newburgh

City of

Poughkeepsie

Town of Wappinger

Town of Fishkill

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Dutchess County Department of Planning. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.



The table below provides a detailed breakdown of population change in the City of

Beacon between 1920 and 2000 in comparison to surrounding communities and Dutchess

County. According to the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development,

Dutchess County was one of only nine New York counties (out of the 62 counties in the

state) to experience population growth of 8 percent or more. In comparison, Beacon

grew by 4.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, New York State’s population grew by 5.5

percent, and the national increase in population was 13.2 percent. Beacon grew at a

slow-to-moderate rate in the decade between 1990 and 2000.

Table IV-1: Population of the City of Beacon and Surrounding Communities

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

City of Beacon 10,996 11,933 12,575 14,012 13,922 13,255 12,937 13,243 13,839

City of Newburgh 30,366 31,275 31,883 31,956 30,979 26,219 23,438 26,454 28,259

City of Poughkeepsie 35,000 40,288 10,478 41,023 38,330 32,029 29,757 28,844 29,871

Town of Wappinger 1,249 1,619 1,997 2,615 6,165 17,559 22,621 22,292 22,322

Town of Fishkill 2,095 2,890 3,615 3,863 7,083 11,935 15,506 17,655 17,993

Dutchess County 91,747 105,462 120,542 136,781 176,008 222,295 245,055 259,462 280,150

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

2. Potential Future Population Growth

While recent trends in the population growth of the City suggest that the City’s

population will reach approximately 14,500 persons by 2010 and 15,250 by 2020, the

City’s future population is very closely tied to the amount of land available for future

residential development and the affect of land use regulations on the density in which

these areas can be developed. The development potential analysis in the Land Use

chapter found that up to 3,365 new residential units could be constructed under current

zoning, but that since a mix of residential and other uses was more likely, 2,150

residential units is a more realistic approximation of the residential development potential

of the City. Multiplying this number of residences by 2.5 persons per household would

result in an additional 5,375 persons, which would bring the City to a total of

approximately 19,500 persons (an increase of nearly 40 percent). At the total population

mark of approximately 17,800 persons, the City would begin to reach the limits of a

reliable (drought-resistant) water supply (see City Utilities chapter for more details).

3. Population Density

Population density refers to the number of people within a specified geographic area.

For this project, population density has been defined as persons per square mile. The

2000 population of 13,839 persons results in a population density of 2,824 people per

square mile in the City of Beacon. The population densities among the communities

surrounding Beacon vary considerably, as shown in the Table IV-2 below.



Table IV-2: Population Density:

City of Beacon and Surrounding Communities (1990 and 2000)

Persons per Square Mile 1990-2000

1990 2000 Full

Build-out

Number

Change

Percent

Change

City of Beacon 2,703 2,824 3,980 121 4%

City of Newburgh 6,962 7,430 - 498 7%

City of Poughkeepsie 5,612 5,811 - 199 4%

Town of Wappinger 844 845 1,196 1 0%

Town of Fishkill 665 678 913 13 2%

Dutchess County 324 349 - 25 8%


4. Age Characteristics

Figure IV-2, below, shows the City’s age characteristics in the year 2000 and provides a

comparison to City’s age characteristics in 1990.

Figure IV-2

Beacon: Age Distribution: 1990 - 2000

1,136

3,616

1,003

696

3,064

2,614

1,868

782

2,582

1,960

1,198

1,052880934

2,593

1,104

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

under 5 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 +

Nu

mb

er

of

Pe

rso

ns

1990

2000

Source: US Census (American Factfinder) P008, P011 (1990). Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (P012). Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates.



While many of the changes in age distribution are dramatic, all of the changes

experienced in Beacon are reflected quite closely by the changes experienced throughout

Dutchess County as a whole (See Figure IV-3).

Figure IV-3

Age Distribution: Beacon in Relation to Dutchess County:

1990 - 2000

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

under 5 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 +

Perc

en

t o

f P

op

ula

tio

n

Dutchess 1990

Beacon 1990

Dutchess 2000

Beacon 2000

Source: US Census (American Factfinder) P008, P011 (1990). Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.


Notable implications of these changing age characteristics since 1990 include the

following:

° The number of children under five was significantly lower in 2000 than in 1990.

There were 934 0-5 year-olds in 2000, versus 1,136 in 1990, a drop of 202 persons,

or 18 percent. This change is reflected, though to a lesser degree, in the County as a

whole, which saw a 7 percent decline in this age group. By 2000, however, the

percent of this age group as a part of the entire population – 6.7% for Beacon and

6.1% for the County – were very similar. Since the number of young adults of

childbearing age in the community has also decreased by 370 persons since 1990, it

is likely that the trend of fewer young children in the City will continue until it

reaches a new equilibrium.



° The number of school-aged children (i.e., roughly persons aged 5 to 19) increased by

19% between 1990 and 2000. Dutchess County also showed a substantial increase in

the number of school-aged children in this decade. The recent increases in the

number of school-aged children in Beacon will be moderated by the lower numbers

of children who were 0-5 years old at the time of the Census.

° The 20 to 34 age group decreased significantly between 1990 and 2000. In the ten

years between the 1990 and the 2000 Census, the portion of the 20 to 34 age cohort

that moved into the next age group was not replaced by equivalent numbers. The size

of the 20 to 34 age cohort in Beacon decreased by 28 percent, from approximately

3,600 persons in 1990 to approximately 2,600 in 2000. As mentioned earlier, a

decrease in this age group may have an effect on the number of births in the City in

the future.

° The 35 to 44 age group and the 45 to 54 age group both increased dramatically in

number between 1990 and 2000, with approximately 650 more people in each age

group in 2000, for a total increase of 42 percent. The number of people in these age

groups was significantly higher than the County’s combined increase of 28 percent

among these age groups since 1990.

° The 55 to 64 age group stayed fairly constant, increasing by 5 percent, or

approximately 50 persons between 1990 and 2000.

° The 65 to 74 age group decreased by about 12 percent, while the over 75 age group

grew by about 12 percent. Both of these age groups are on par with the County in

terms of the size of the age cohort in relation to the size of the total population.

These age groups combined are 12 percent of the total population, both in Beacon

and for the County as a whole.

5. Aging Population

Table IV-3, below, shows the numbers and percentages of the population over 45 and

over 55 years old in the City of Beacon, Dutchess County and New York State. The

percentages remain relatively consistent within each region highlighting that the City’s

population profile for persons aged over 45 and 55 are comparable to both the County

and State.



Table IV-3: Beacon’s Population over 45

Persons % of Population

45 + 55+ 45+ 55+

Beacon 4,634 2,766 33.5% 20.0%

Dutchess County 99,023 58,884 35.3% 21.0%

New York State 6,689,275 4,136,339 35.3% 21.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

Table IV-6, below, shows the calculation of age group shifts in Beacon over time taking

into account average cohort survival rates drawn from the New York State averages. It

should be noted that the effects of in-migration and out-migration are unaccounted for.

Table IV-4: Calculation of Age Group Shifts in Beacon over Time

Population (2000)

Projected

Deaths

Population

Adjusted with Age

Group Shift (2010)

Projected

Deaths

Population

Adjusted with Age

Group Shift (2020)

(2000-

2010)

(2010-

2020)

2,614 46 45-54 2,568 106 55-64 2,462

1,868 77 55-64 1,791 167 65-74 1,624

1,104 103 65-74 1,001 223 75-84 778

880 196 75-84 684 363 85+ 386

573 304 85+ 312 248

209 166

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, using average death rates from the CDC. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

Figure IV-5, below, shows the dramatic increases that will occur over the next twenty

years in the elderly segments of the population. In the next twenty years, the number of

people in the 55-64 age group will increase from 2,238 to 3,870, an increase of 73%. The

65-74 age group will double (from 1,419 to 2,888). Similarly, the 75-84 age group will

more than double (from 614 to 1,578), and the most elderly age group will increase

dramatically as well.



Figure IV-4

Projected Increase in the Senior Population

through 2020

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

55-64 65-74 75-84 85+

Age Group

Nu

mb

er

of

Pe

rso

ns

2000

2010

2020

Source: US Census (American Factfinder) P008, Center for Disease Contro l: National Vital Statistics.

Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Disease Control. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

6. Ethnic Composition

Figure IV-5 below shows the distribution by ethnicity for the City of Beacon in the year

2000. Beacon is more ethnically and racially diverse than both Dutchess County and

Westchester County. Beacon has approximately 2,400 African-Americans and 2,300

Latinos, compared with approximately 8,500 non-Latino Whites. Beacon has

approximately twice the proportion of African-Americans and Latinos of Dutchess

County, which has 8.8 percent African-Americans and 6.3 percent Latinos. Minority

groups have grown moderately in Beacon over the past decade. African-Americans and

Latinos increased from 14 percent to 17 percent, and Asians increased from less than one

percent to three percent of the total population.



Figure IV-5

Beacon: Racial and Ethnic Groups: 2000

American Indian,

0.2%

Other Race, 0.2%

White , 61.2%

Black/African

American, 17.4%

Two or More

Races, 1.0%

Hispanic/Latino,

16.8%

Asian, 3.1%

Source: US Census (American Factfinder) P007. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.


7. Employment and Income Characteristics

The unemployment rate in Beacon was 5.7 percent in 2000, which was the same as the

unemployment rate for the County as a whole in by the Census measure. The U.S.

Department of Labor provides statistics only for those communities with a population of

25,000 or more, so there is no available data on an ongoing basis for Beacon. The

Department of Labor’s figures for Dutchess County unemployment was 3.2 percent for

2000, and.4.2 percent for 2004. Beacon’s unemployment rate was significantly lower

than rates in Newburgh and Poughkeepsie, particularly because the rate for women was

phenomenally low, at 2.3 percent. With 3,081 women in the labor force in Beacon

(compared with 3,378 men), the low unemployment rate among women can not be

attributed to an overly small sample size.



Table IV-6: Unemployment Rate:

Beacon and Surrounding Communities: April 2000

Unemployed

Males 16 and

over

Unemployed

Females 16 and

over

Total

Unemployed

City of Beacon 8.9% 2.3% 5.7%

City of Newburgh 11.8% 10.9% 11.3%

City of Poughkeepsie 7.2% 9.1% 8.2%

Town of Fishkill 4.9% 3.3% 4.2%

Dutchess County 5.9% 5.6% 5.7%

Orange County 5.4% 4.8% 5.1%

Putnam County 3.7% 3.2% 3.5%

Westchester County 4.2% 4.6% 4.4%

Source: US Census (American FactFinder) P043. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

Figure IV-7 and Table IV-7 below show household income in the City of Beacon and

provide a comparison with neighboring communities and Dutchess County. As seen in

the figure below the largest of Beacon households (over 1/3 of the City’s households)

earn an income of $50,000 to $100,000 per year. As shown in the figure, the size of

various income groups in the City are similar to those in Dutchess County and in Town of

Fishkill. The City’s median household income ($45,236), median family income

($53,811) and per capita income ($20,654) are all, with approximately 15 percent less

than the medians found for the Poughkeepsie, but lower than those for the entire county.



Figure IV-7

Less than $

10,0

00

$15,0

00 to $

19,9

99

$25,0

00 to $

29,9

99

$35,0

00 to $

39,9

99

$45,0

00 to $

49,9

99

$60,0

00 to $

74,9

99

$100,0

00 to $

124,9

99

$150,0

00 to $

199,9

99

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Income Bracket

Household Income Distribution: Beacon and

Neighboring Areas: 2000

Beacon city

Fishkill town

Poughkeepsie city

Newburgh city

Dutchess County



Table IV-7: Household Income – City of Beacon and Dutchess County (2000)

City of

Beacon

City of

Poughkeepsie

Town of

Wappinger

Town of

Fishkill

Dutchess

County

Less than $10,000 9% 17% 3% 5% 6%

$10,000 to $14,999 6% 10% 4% 5% 5%

$15,000 to $24,999 11% 16% 8% 9% 10%

$25,000 to $34,999 11% 14% 11% 11% 11%

$35,000 to $49,999 16% 14% 14% 16% 15%

$50,000 to $74,999 24% 6% 25% 25% 22%

$75,000 to $99,999 14% 6% 15% 15% 15%

$100,000to $149,999 7% 1% 15% 9% 12%

$150,000to $199,999 2% 1% 4% 3% 3%

$200,000 or more 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%

Median Household

Income

$45,236 $29,389 $58,079 $52,745 $53,086

Median Family

Income

$53,811 $35,779 $66,273 $63,574 $63,254

Per Capita Income $20,654 $16,759 $25,817 $22,662 $23,940 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

Note: Percentages were rounded.

Table IV-8, below, shows the poverty status of certain household types in the City of

Beacon and provides a comparison to the County as a whole. Approximately 9 percent

of the City’s families were reported by the Census as earning below the poverty level1,

and 15% of families with children under 18 and 30% of single-parent female householder

families with children under 18 have incomes below the poverty level in the City.

Table IV-8: Poverty Status – City of Beacon and Dutchess County (1999)

City of

Beacon

City of

Poughkeepsie

Town of

Wappinger

Town of

Fishkill

Dutchess

County

Families 9.1% 18.4% 3.2% 3.4% 5.0%

With Related Children

Under 18

14.7% 26.5% 5.1% 6.3% 7.6%

Families with Female

Householder, No Husband

Present

29.3% 34.1% 10.7% 11.0% 18.9%

With Related Children

Under 18

41.1% 41.1% 15.1% 17.6% 26.3%

Individuals 11.0% 22.7% 4.1% 5.4% 7.5%

65 and Over 6.2% 13.8% 4.9% 7.5% 6.5%


1 The poverty level is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as three times the amount a family must spend

on food in a year.



Looking at the poverty information in terms of age groups, 17 percent of Beacon’s

children are in poverty. This rate is less than the nearby cities of Newburgh and

Poughkeepsie, which have rates of 35 percent and 31 percent respectively. But the

percentage of children living in poverty is also considerably higher than the rate for

Dutchess County, which is 9 percent.

Beacon’s poverty rate for adults 18 to 64 years old is 5 percent of all persons for whom

poverty status is determined, versus 4 percent in Dutchess County. The poverty rate for

the senior population is 6 percent of all seniors, which is the same in Dutchess County as

a whole.

B. General Housing Characteristics

1. Households and Housing Units

The table below illustrates the proportion of different household types for the City of

Beacon in 2000. Table IV-9 shows the household composition of the City of Beacon in

relation to neighboring communities and the County. As shown in the table, there was a

total of 5,119 households in the City in 2000, of which 2,355 (46%) were families.2 The

table shows that approximately 46% of the households in the City consisted of married

couples. Thirty-five percent (35%) of the City’s households (or 1,769 households)

contained children under the age of 18, of which 1,120 (or 22% of the City’s households)

were headed by a married couple.

Table IV-9: City of Beacon Household Composition (2000)

Household Composition 2000

Family

Households

Married Couple

Households

Married Couple

Households with

Children under 18

Total Households

with Children

under 18

City of Beacon 66.8% 46.0% 21.9% 34.6%

City of Newburgh 66.8% 36.3% 20.6% 41.6%

City of Poughkeepsie 55.5% 30.3% 13.0% 29.3%

Town of Fishkill 62.2% 52.9% 23.0% 28.0%

Dutchess County 70.0% 56.6% 27.8% 35.2%

Source: US Census (American FactFinder) P010. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

2 Defined as a group of two or more related individuals



Table IV-10: City of Beacon Household Composition (2000)


Note: Percentages were rounded.

Decreases in average household size (see table below) have been a county-wide trend

since 1950 while the percentage of American households made up of married couples

with children has been shrinking since 1970. Today, this group makes up only 25% of

households nationwide and 22% in the City of Beacon. This data highlights that there are

fewer married couples living with their children and more people living alone, with

roommates, or as single parents, today than there used to be. The steady decrease in

persons per household necessitates more units to accommodate the same number of

people.

Table IV-11: Average Household Size – City of Beacon and Surrounding

Communities, State, Country

Table IV-12, below, shows the changes in the number of total housing units in the City

over the last 10 years and provides a comparison to surrounding communities and

Dutchess County. It is interesting to note that the increase in the number of dwelling

units over the last 10 years was 9 percent while the City population has increased at a

slower rate (4.5 percent) during this same time period. This is likely due to an overall

decrease in average household size in the City.

Number

Percent of

Households

Total Households 5,119 --

Family Households 3,422 67%

Married Couple Households 2,355 46%

Total Households with Children under 18 1,769 35%

Married Couple Households with Children under 18 1,120 22%

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

City of Beacon 3.09 2.76 2.68 2.61

City of Newburgh 2.97

City of Poughkeepsie 2.79 2.37 2.36 2.40

Town of Fishkill 3.25 2.73 2.49 2.33

Town of Wappinger 3.39 2.97 2.79 2.67

Dutchess County 3.24 3.21 2.84 2.69 2.63

New York State 2.70 2.63 2.61

U.S.A. 3.55 3.14 2.76 2.63 2.59



Table IV-12: Housing Units in City of Beacon, Surrounding Communities and

Dutchess County (1990 and 2000)

Housing Units Number

Change

Percent

Change

1990

2000

1990-

2000

1990-

2000

City of Beacon 4,963 5,415 452 9%

City of Poughkeepsie 13,112 13,153 41 0.3%

City of Fishkill 5,991 7,059 1,068 18%

Town of Wappinger 8,100 8,466 366 5%

Dutchess County 97,632 106,103 8,471 9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. Note: Some percentages were rounded.

2. Housing Characteristics

Most of the City’s existing housing stock was constructed prior to 1960, with steady rates

of construction from the 1960’s through the 1980’s, averaging roughly 600 units per year.

Housing units built before 1940 are 41 percent of Beacon’s housing stock, and nearly half

of the housing stock in Poughkeepsie and Newburgh, which shows that Beacon’s history

of development is typical for a small city in the region. Beacon has grown more steadily

in the past three decades than these neighboring cities, with 26 percent of housing units

built since 1970, versus 23 percent in Poughkeepsie and 18 percent in Newburgh.

Table IV-13: Year Housing Structure Built - City of Beacon

Year Structure Built Number of Housing Units Percent of Structures

1990 to March 2000 234 4%

1980 to 1989 637 12%

1970 to 1979 511 9%

1960 to 1969 734 14%

1950 to 1959 629 12%

1940 to 1949 448 8%

1939 or earlier 2222 41% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.

Note: Percentages were rounded. City figures do not include the Village of Beacons Falls.

There are 265 new single-family detached residences and 113 new 3-to-4 family

structures. Since there are a total of 76 fewer single-family attached and two family

residences, it is likely that these were converted to either single-family detached or 3-to-4

family structures. Also, there was an increase in the number of housing units in

structures with 5 of more unites, by 131 housing units.



Figure IV-8

BEACON HOUSING STOCK TRENDS

UNITS BY TYPE 1950 to 2000

1,847

2,3682,575

2,3282,510

2,775

265

480

448

1,095

915823 753

752

708

463

398394 421

415

528

296

291383

859

803

934

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

HO

US

ING

UN

ITS

5 + Units

3 to 4 Units

2 Units

1 Unit

Attached

1 Unit

Detached

Source: US Census (American Fact f inder) H030. Prepared by F. P. Clark Associat es.

The chart below , Figure IV-9, provides percentages of housing types in the City in 2000

and provides a graphical comparison to surrounding communities and Dutchess County.

As is evident in the figure, Beacon’s mix of housing stock is most similar to the housing

stock mix in the Town of Fishkill. Beacon has nearly twice the proportion of single-

family homes as Poughkeepsie and Newburgh, and half as many housing units in

structures with 3 or more housing units.



Figure IV-9: Units in Structure - City of Beacon, Surrounding Communities and

Dutchess County (2000)

BEACON AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES: PERCENT OF

HOUSING STOCK BY TYPE: 2000

64.8%

51.2%48.3%

27.7%24.1%

4.2%6.7%

6.4%

13.1%

19.2%24.6%

7.0%9.8%

7.6%

19.9%

28.1%

5.6% 6.8%

12.3% 11.7%

5.9%

4.3%

7.6%5.6%

3.4%

4.4%8.2%

4.4%

8.3% 12.5%

6.6%4.1% 4.1%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Dutchess

County

Beacon Fishkill Poughkeepsie

(City)

Newburgh

Other

50 or more

20 to 49

10 to 19

5 to 9

3 or 4

2

1 attached

1 detached

Source: US Census (American Factf inder) H030. Prepared by F. P. Clark Associates.


City of Beacon Comprehensive Plan (September 2003) IV-17

Table IV-14, below, shows the changes in overall tenancy status of occupied housing in the City over the last 20 years and

provides a comparison to surrounding communities and Dutchess County as a whole. Both owner-occupied units and renter-

occupied units have grown in number since 1980, but renter-occupied units have grown at a faster rate (20 percent versus 13

percent).

Table IV-14: Status of Occupied Housing (1980 and 2000)

1980 1990 2000 1980-2000 1990-2000

Owner-

Occupied

Renter-

Occupied

Owner-

Occupied

Renter-

Occupied

Owner-

Occupied

Renter-

Occupied

Owner-

Occupied

Renter-

Occupied

Owner-

Occupied

Renter-

Occupied

# of

units

% of

units

# of

units

% of

units

# of

units

% of

units

# of

units

% of

units

# of

units

% of

units

# of

units

% of

units

#

change

%

change

#

change

%

change

#

change

%

change

#

change

%

change

City of Beacon 2,546 58% 1,845 42% 2,810 59% 1,911 41% 2,881 56% 2,220 44% 335 13% 375 20% 71 3% 309 16%

City of

Poughkeepsie

4,668 38% 7,594 62% 4,773 40% 7,101 60% 4,419 37% 7,595 63% -249 -5% 1 0% -354 -7% 494 7%

Town of Fishkill

3,244 62% 1,963 38% 3,711 65% 1,999 35% 4,484 65% 2,391 35% 1,240 38% 428 22% 773 21% 392 20%

Town of

Wappinger

5,454 61% 3,507 39% 6,438 70% 2,808 30% 6,433 66% 3,377 34% 979 18% -130 -4% -5 0% 569 20%

Dutchess

County

53,591 63% 27,051 32% 61,899 69% 27,668 31% 68,628 69% 30,908 31% 15,037 28% 3,857 14% 6,729 11% 3,240 12%



City of Beacon Comprehensive Plan (November 2005) IV-18

The following table illustrates the trends in single-family residential structures and in

owner-occupancy. According to Census records, these were at their height in 1960 and

1970. Due to the development of single-family attached and other housing types for

ownership, the percentages for housing type and tenure type have diverged.

Table IV-15

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc

This table illustrates the balance of tenure type in the City versus neighboring

communities and the County. Beacon stands between the nearby Cities and the more

rural structure of Fishkill and Dutchess County.

Table IV-16

TENURE IN 2000:

BEACON AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES

Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Beacon 56.5% 43.5%

Fishkill 65.2% 34.8%

Poughkeepsie (City) 36.8% 63.2%

Newburgh 30.6% 69.4%

Dutchess County 68.9% 31.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc

The following table provides a more detailed picture of tenancy in the City by Census tract and

at three time periods, 1990, 2000, and 2004.

BEACON HOUSING STOCK TRENDS

1950 - 2000

Single-Family

Detached

Units

(% of total)

Owner-

Occupied

Units

(% of total)

1950 49.8% 51.9%

1960 59.5% 59.7%

1970 61.6% 56.2%

1980 50.3% 55.0%

1990 50.6% 55.8%

2000 51.2% 53.2%



Table IV-17: Detailed Tenure by Census Tract, 1990 - 2004

1990

Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total

# % # % #

CT 2101 791 60.2% 524 39.8% 1,315

CT 2102 961 48.4% 1,025 51.6% 1,986

CT 2103 1,058 74.5% 362 25.5% 1,420

Total 2,810 59.5% 1,911 40.5% 4,721

1999


# % # % #

CT 2101 914 63.3% 530 36.7% 1,444

CT 2102 1,203 49.4% 1,231 50.6% 2,434

CT 2103 1,245 77.0% 372 23.0% 1,617

Total 3,362 61.2% 2,133 38.8% 5,495

2004


# % # % #

CT 2101 953 64.3% 529 35.7% 1,482

CT 2102 1,273 50.0% 1,272 50.0% 2,545

CT 2103 1,289 77.7% 369 22.3% 1,658

Total 3,515 61.8% 2,170 38.2% 5,685 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc



As seen in the table below, Beacon has an average rate of vacant for-sale housing

compared to the County. Beacon’s vacancy rate for units for rent is higher than the

County, but lower than Poughkeepsie and Newburgh.

Table IV-18: Vacant Housing Units

Housing

units:

Total

Vacant

housing

units:

Total

Vacant

housing

units: For

rent

Vacant

housing

units: For

sale only

Vacant

housing

units:

Rented or

sold; not

occupied

Vacant

housing

units: For

seasonal;

recreation;

or

occasional

use

Vacant

housing

units:

Other

vacant

Beacon city 5,415 314 176 50 24 18 46

Fishkill town 7,059 184 61 42 14 40 27

Poughkeepsie city 13,153 1,139 505 127 96 85 326

Newburgh city 10,479 1,332 537 278 131 32 354

Dutchess County 106,103 6,567 1,496 935 521 2,753 862

PERCENT OF TOTAL HOUSING UNITS

Beacon city 5.8% 3.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.8%

Fishkill town 2.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.4%

Poughkeepsie city 8.7% 3.8% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 2.5%

Newburgh city 12.7% 5.1% 2.7% 1.3% 0.3% 3.4%

Dutchess County 6.2% 1.4% 0.9% 0.5% 2.6% 0.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc

3. Housing Costs

Figure IV-10 illustrates the rent cost for a typical two bedroom apartment in the City of

Beacon, and in the County.

This graph was generated from data provided by the Dutchess County Department of

Planning, which conducts an annual survey of the Poughkeepsie Journal, The Penny

Saver, and the Taconic newspaper classified sections. The sample size for Beacon was

fairly small: 49 apartments for rent (all sizes) were surveyed in 2003, 58 in 2004.

Therefore, a margin of error is indicated on the graph. It is clear that Beacon’s rent rates

are similar to those of the County overall. The total sample for the County was much

larger, around 400. County rents have increased by 43% for the two-bedroom apartments

in the sample since 1999.



Figure IV-10

Beacon and Dutchess County:

Rent (Two Bedroom Apartment)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Ren

t

Beacon

Dutchess County

Source: Dutchess County Rental Surveys, 2003, 2004

Figure IV-11

MEDIAN GROSS RENT

Cities of Beacon & Poughkeepsie 1960 to 2000

$88

$229

$437

$89

$229

$608

$55

$658

$58

$458

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

GR

OS

S R

EN

T

Beacon Poughkeepsie

Source: US Census (American Factfinder) H063. Prepared by F. P. Clark Associates.

The following graph and chart illustrate the increased home values according to census

data over the past several decades, and the rank (1 being the highest value) of the median-



valued home in Beacon versus neighboring communities. The table also includes

information on median rent for 2000, but it has been sorted according to home value,

from the lowest to the highest. Home prices in Beacon are among the lowest in the

sample, at $120,000 at the time of the census. Actual sales prices have increased

dramatically since then to a median of $207,750 in 2004 (see Figure IV-13).

Figure IV-12

MEDIAN VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS

Cities of Beacon & Poughkeepsie 1960 to 2000

$17,855

$35,600

$120,800

$15,800

$24,264

$40,300

$115,500

$11,838

$119,500$128,700

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

ME

DIA

N V

AL

UE

Beacon Poughkeepsie




Table IV-19

Specified renter-

occupied housing units

paying cash rent: Median

gross rent

Rent: Rank Owner-occupied housing

units: Median value

Value:

Rank

Poughkeepsie city $608 22 $108,800 23

Pine Plains town $635 20 $118,400 22

Beacon city $658 18 $120,000 21

Amenia town $607 23 $122,000 20

Hyde Park town $690 14 $125,600 19

North East town $677 16 $128,200 18

Dover town $649 19 $130,900 17

Poughkeepsie town $745 8 $139,800 16

Fishkill town $813 4 $143,200 15

Red Hook town $622 21 $143,900 14

Dutchess County $707 11 $150,800 13

Milan town $675 17 $151,300 12

Pleasant Valley

town $747 7 $154,600 11

Wappinger town $798 5 $155,700 10

Clinton town $748 6 $169,200 9

Rhinebeck town $714 9 $174,500 8

Pawling town $713 10 $177,200 7

La Grange town $869 1 $177,800 6

Stanford town $691 13 $182,100 5

Beekman town $859 2 $182,300 4

Union Vale town $851 3 $192,400 3

Washington town $702 12 $192,700 2

East Fishkill town $690 14 $197,900 1



The cost of purchasing a home in Beacon has also risen considerably in recent years. The

median sales price for a single-family detached home in 1998 was $98,500; in 2004, the

cost was more than twice that, at $207,750. The annual income required to obtain a

mortgage for a $207,750 priced home, based on mortgage industry standards, no

household debts and an interest rate of 6.0 percent is $42,500. Indexing the 2000 Beacon

median household income of $45,250 to wage increases as measured by the U.S.

Department of Labor and multiplying this number by three provides a rough estimate of

what is affordable to the median-income household in Beacon, as shown in the figure

below.

Figure IV-13: Housing Affordability in Dutchess County and Beacon

Beacon: Housing Affordability

$98,500

$207,750

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

County Home Value

(Census)

County House Prices

(NYSORPS)

Beacon Home Value

(Census)

Beacon House Prices

(NYSORPS)

Housing Affordability

(three times income)

County Household

Income (Census)

Beacon Household

Income (Census)

County Average Wage

(Dept. Labor)

Escalating housing prices led to the formation of the Dutchess County Smart Growth

Task Force which was created to evaluate the condition of the County’s housing stock, to

identify obstacles to a balanced housing stock and to make recommendations as to how to

address these obstacles. The Task Force’s findings were released in a report prepared by

the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development and dated December

2001. The report found that housing in Dutchess County is becoming increasingly

unaffordable for many of its residents particularly in the last few years. For example, the

Task Force found that in 2000 the median income household and family would have been



able to afford the median priced single-family home (e.g., the median income household

of $55,744 would have been able to afford the median single-family home of $160,000).

However, as a result of the significant increase in the median sales prices in 2000 and

2001, the median income household would no longer be able to afford the median priced

home since it is unlikely that household income would have increased by the same

percentage that housing prices increased by during that period. The Task Force’s report

(can be viewed or printed from the County’s website at www.dutchessny.gov/sghtfr.pdf)

makes a number of recommendations to alleviate some of the impediments to a balanced

and affordable housing supply.

The Census measures the number of households in various income brackets that have a

high housing burden. A high housing burden is defined as paying over 30% of gross

income for housing costs, including utilities for renters, and including insurance and taxes

for home owners. The chart below summarizes this information for the City of Beacon in

the year 2000. In 2000, which is before home prices began their rapid increase, a total of

1,321 households (about one-quarter of all households in the City) had a high housing

burden. About 60% of these households were renters, and about 40% were owners. We

can assume that the number of households with a high housing burden has increased

among renters (who are paying higher rents now than in 2000) and among homeowners

who have recently purchased or refinanced a home. Households throughout Dutchess

County are in similar circumstances.

Table IV-20

NUMBER PERCENT

Households

paying 30%

or more of

income for

housing

Households

paying 40%

or more of

income for

housing

Households

paying 50%

or more of

income for

housing

Households

paying 30%

or more of

income for

housing

Households

paying 40%

or more of

income for

housing

Households

paying 50%

or more of

income for

housing

City of Beacon 1,321 869 601 28.6 18.8 13.0

Town of Fishkill 1,906 1,169 787 31.7 19.5 13.1

City of Poughkeepsie 4,288 2,965 2,196 41.2 28.5 21.1

City of Newburgh 3,479 2,392 1,854 43.3 29.8 23.1

Dutchess County 25,418 15,062 9,999 29.7 17.6 11.7 Source: US Census (2000)

The proportion of households experiencing a housing burden in Beacon follows a similar

pattern to that in the County, with a few exceptions. Among homeowners, those with a

very limited income – less than $10,000 – with a housing burden in Beacon are nearly 70

percent of such homeowners, whereas throughout the County, the proportion is over 90

percent. In the $10,000 to $34,000 income range, Beacon has a higher proportion of

homeowners with a housing burden than the county – about 5 percent higher. Beacon has

only about 10 percent of its homeowners with incomes of $50,000 to $75,000 with a

housing burden, versus over 20 percent for the same group in Dutchess County.



Among renters, Beacon’s low income households – from $10,000 to $34,000 – with a

high housing burden constitute a lower proportion of all households in these income

brackets than the County. Approximately 85 percent of Dutchess County households

have a high housing burden in the $10,000 to $20,000 bracket, versus 75 percent in

Beacon. Likewise, 50 percent of Dutchess County households in the $20,000 to $35,000

income bracket have a high housing burden, versus approximately 35 percent in Beacon.

This suggests that the households in the low income categories are receiving more

assistance, and/or finding rental units for lower cost than in the County as a whole.

The graph below shows that about half of the homeowners in the $10,000 to $50,000

income range have a high housing burden. There are about 450 households in Beacon

that own a home, earn up to $50,000, and have a high housing burden

Figure IV-14: Owners’ Housing Burden – City of Beacon (2000)

Beacon Homeowners with Housing Burden

(Paying over 30% of Income for Housing)

51

113

138 153

80

6

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

less than

$10,000

$10,000 to

$19,999

$20,000 to

$34,999

$35,000 to

$49,999

$50,000 to

$74,999

$75,000 to

$99,999

$100,000 to

$150,000

$150,000 or

more

Year 2000 Income Brackets

Nu

mb

er

of

Ho

useh

old

s

housing

burden not

computed

by Census




Figure IV-15: Renters’ Housing Burden – City of Beacon (2000)

Beacon Renters with Housing Burden

(Paying over 30% of Income for Housing)

38

195240

307

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

less than

$10,000

$10,000 to

$19,999

$20,000 to

$34,999

$35,000 to

$49,999

$50,000 to

$74,999

$75,000 to

$99,999

$100,000 or

more

Year 2000 Income Brackets

Nu

mb

er

of

Ho

us

eh

old

s

housing

burden not

computed by

Census


This graph shows that more than half of Beacon’s renting households making up to

$35,000 have a high housing burden. There are 742 renter households in these income

brackets with a high housing burden in Beacon.



The following table shows that over ten percent of the housing in Beacon is subsidized,

compared with 2.4 percent of the housing in Dutchess County as a whole. The table

itemizes the project-based locations of subsidized housing in the City.

Table IV-21

Subsidized Housing

Subsidized

Senior

Units

Non-

Senior

Units

Total

Units

Percent

of Total

Housing

Income

Restricted

Length of

Waiting

List

Davis South

Terrace 0 124 124 $40,000 3 - 5 years

Forrestal Heights 135 40 175 $40,000 1 - 4 years

Hamilton Fish

Plaza 70 0 70 $26,000 1 - 4 years

Tompkins Terrace 0 193 193 $40,000 1 + years

Meadow Ridge 11

Total: City of

Beacon 205 357 573 10.6%

Dutchess County 1,324 1,115 2,499 2.4%

J:\DOCS2\100\Beacon\Basic Studies\Demographics & Housing.doc

Inventory and Analysis Community Services and Facilities

City Beacon Comprehensive Plan (March 2006) V-1

V. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES

This chapter provides information on the essential community services and facilities

available to City of Beacon residents: fire and police protection, emergency services,

education, recreation, open space and public water and sewer services.

A. Protection Services

Police Department

The City of Beacon Police Department, located at 1 Municipal Center in Beacon,

provides coverage to the citizens of Beacon on a 24/7 basis. The department

operates with 37 full time police officers and 3 civilian clerical staff. The

department is tied into Dutchess County 911 Emergency Phone System by a direct

line. The department handles approximately 14,000 calls for service a year. The

department operates the following divisions:

Patrol Division

Three shifts of officers are on duty during a 24 hour period. They are known as the

uniform division and their primary responsibility is to respond to any calls for

service or crimes in progress reported within the boundaries of the City. The patrol

shift working is further broken into units with specialties to support their mission:

o The K 9 Unit includes two working teams that are trained in routine patrol

methods, suspect tracking and narcotic identification.

o The Traffic Enforcement assigned for radar enforcement, parking

enforcement, accident investigation and commercial vehicle enforcement.

o Bike Patrol Unit operates at various times during the year and patrols the

Main Street area, City Park and densely settled residential areas

Detective Division

The Detective Division is responsible for case preparation and criminal

prosecution and receives all felony investigations that are reported. This unit is

also responsible for all adult narcotic investigations.



Juvenile Division

The Juvenile Division is responsible for all juvenile crimes (crimes committed by

people under the age of 16 years old), crimes against juveniles, all reported sex

crimes and all child protective cases reported.

Fire Department

The City of Beacon Fire Department is a volunteer and career fire department that

has been protecting the City of Beacon since the city's establishment in 1913. In

addition to providing primary coverage to the City of Beacon, the department also

serves the Town of Fishkill with a population of about 10,000 people in an area of

about 20 square miles.

The department provides fire and rescue services with a staff of roughly 75

volunteer firefighters, 13 full-time career firefighters and 2 part-time support

personnel. The department operates out of three fire houses that house 6 fire-

fighting vehicles. The department responds to over 1,200 runs a year, while

boasting the County's fastest response time. The City of Beacon Fire Department

is in Battalion 7 of the Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response and

operates as department 33. The Battalion Chief is responsible for acting as a

liaison between the county and departments in the battalion. The City’s Fire

Department, which dates back to 1886, is one of the few that has operated from

the same three companies throughout its history. These companies are as follows:

1. Station 1 (Beacon Engine Co): Beacon Engine Company runs out of its

historic 1889 station house and is located at 57 East Main Street in the City

of Beacon.

2. Station 2 (Lewis Tompkins Hose Co:Lewis Tompkins Hose Company

operates out of the city's newest 1982 station which is located at One South

Avenue in the City of Beacon.

3. Fire Headquarters (Mase Hook and Ladder Co): Mase Hook and Ladder

Company has a large 3 story 1911 station house which is located at 417-

419 Main Street in the City of Beacon.

The City of Beacon Fire Department also has many other support divisions that

allow the fire suppression division to operate successfully. The other divisions that

Beacon operates with are the Fire Prevention Division, Fire-Police Unit, and Fire

Investigation Unit.



The Beacon Fire-Police Unit is an eleven person unit that is known as the "Safety

Unit of the Fire Department." The Beacon Fire Police Unit serves as many of the

same functions as police officers at fires and other emergency scenes. These

functions can include traffic control, crowd control, scene security, and other

functions which may be required.

Fire Police are volunteers who benefit the city by reducing the number of police

needed to serve these vital functions at emergency scenes and wherever their

services are requested. Although they are not paid, Fire Police carry the same

authority and powers as police officers at any location to which they are

dispatched or requested to serve.

The City Fire Investigation Unit is a joint unit between the city fire and police

department. The team is made up of a total of 7 members, 3 of which are New

York State Certified Fire Investigators. The team is responsible for determining

the origin and cause of fires. They investigate all aspects of fires that occur

throughout the city.

The City of Beacon Fire Prevention Division is responsible for setting up and

running the Department’s various fire prevention events. These events include

going to local daycare facilities and schools as well as various businesses in town

to perform various prevention and activism classes. In addition the Department

invites many groups and organizations to visit the various stations in the city to

also have these events.

Emergency Services

In addition to its "traditional" firefighting duties, the City of Beacon Fire

Department responds with at least two Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT’s)

to all life threatening medical calls within the city with the local ambulance

providers, Beacon Volunteer Ambulance and Alamo EMS. The Department's

personnel are also trained in confined space, technical, and specialized rescue. The

Fire Department is also trained in and capable of commanding each and every

emergency in the city whether it’s an auto accident, a hazardous materials

incident, or a natural disaster.

The Beacon Volunteer Ambulance Corps (BVAC) was first started in 1958 and its

initial ambulance was housed at the Beacon Engine Company. The BVAC

Headquarters located at 1 Arquilla Drive in Beacon was dedicated in May of 1980.

Today the Beacon Volunteer Ambulance Corps runs a fleet of three modern, fully

equipped, New York State Certified ambulances, a Basic Life Support First

Response vehicle and a Mass Casualty Incident Trailer. The BVAC responds



approximately 1900-2000 calls per year, which makes it one of the busiest

volunteer services in the county.

B. Education

The City of Beacon School District (CBSD) is one of the 13 school districts that

are affiliated with the Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Extension Services

(BOCES), a government-funded agency that provides local school districts with a

variety of educational services for adults and children. In addition to the seven

schools that are part of the CBSD, the City of Beacon also has one private school.

The district has one high school, one middle school and four elementary schools;

five out of six are located within the City of Beacon. The CBSD has a bus

transportation system for students in grades K-12 who reside more than 1.5 miles

from school. The location of the schools is shown in the map, Community

Facilities.

Public Schools:

Beacon High School Beacon High School is a secondary grade organization that houses students in

grades 9 to 12. It is located 101 Matteawan Road in Beacon. 1,093 students

were enrolled in the school in 2003-04 school year.

Rombout Middle School Rombout Middle School is a middle grade organization and houses students in

grades 6 to 8. It is located 84 Matteawan Road in Beacon. 839 students were

enrolled in the school in 2003-04 school year.

J.V. Forrestal School J.V. Forrestal School is an elementary grade organization and houses students

in grades PK to 5. It is located 125 Liberty Street in Beacon. 324 students

were enrolled in this elementary school in 2003-04 school year.

Sargent School Sargent School is an elementary grade organization and houses students in

grades K to 5. It is located 60 South Avenue in Beacon. 397 students were

enrolled in this elementary school in 2003-04 school year.



South Avenue School South Avenue School is an elementary grade organization and houses students

in grades K to 5. It is located 29 Education Drive in Beacon. 432 students

were enrolled in this elementary school in 2003-04 school year.

Glenhem School Glenhem School is an elementary grade organization and houses students in

grades K to 5. It is located 20 Chase Drive in Fishkill. 391 students were

enrolled in this elementary school in 2003-04 school year.

According to records maintained by Beacon City School District, 3,476 students were

enrolled in public schools in the district in 2003-2004. Between 1998 and 2004, school

enrollment has increased steadily, from 3,234 to 3,476 students.

Private Schools:

Oasis Christian School Oasis Christian School houses students in grades K to 12 and is located 7

Delavan Avenue in Beacon.

C. Health

Nursing Homes The City of Beacon has two nursing homes for those individuals who are in need

of skilled nursing care or supervision on a 24 hour per day basis. The City’s two

nursing homes that are licensed and monitored by the New York State Department

of Health are as follows:

Fishkill Health Center:

Fishkill Health Center, located at 22 Robert R. Kasin Way in the City of Beacon,

is a for-profit corporation. It has been certified since 1991 and has 160 certified

beds. The nursing home currently houses 155 residents.

Wingate at St. Francis:

Wingate at St. Francis, a for-profit organization, is located at 10 Hastings Drive in

the City of Beacon. It has been certified since 2001 with 160 beds. This nursing

home currently houses 149 residents.



Adult Homes The City of Beacon has two adult care facilities. Adult Care Facilities are one of

the two types of adult homes recognized by the New York State. These facilities

are licensed by the New York State Department of Social Services and are

monitored locally by the Dutchess County Department of Social Services. The

City’s two adult care facilities are as follows:

Hedgewood Home has a capacity of 200 beds and is located at 355 Fishkill

Avenue in Beacon.

McClelland’s Home for Adults has a capacity of 70 beds and is located at 126 Old

Castle Point Road in Beacon.

D. Community Recreation and Open Space

The City of Beacon has numerous recreation opportunities that are managed by the

Beacon Recreation Commission. The Recreation Department is located in the

lower level of the Municipal Building and provides safe and positive recreation

programs to the residents of the City of Beacon.

Events:

Children's Easter Egg Hunt

Children’s Easter egg hunt is held at Riverfront Park for children up to age 8 the

week before Easter.

Halloween Parade

Halloween Parade is held the Sunday before Halloween at the Municipal Center.

It begins at Rombout School, marches down Wilkes St. and concludes at the

pavilion. This event offer prizes and candy.

Holiday Tree Lighting and Dessert with Santa

Tree lighting event is held outside of Lewis Tompkins Hose Firehouse and is

followed by dessert with Santa inside the firehouse. This event also offers

refreshments to all that attend and candy to children age 8 and under.

Community Day & Fireworks This is a full day of activities with a Flea Market, events and entertainment for

children, a four day carnival and fireworks in the evening. This event is held on

Saturday before the 4th of July at Memorial Park.



University Settlement Camp Pool University Settlement Camp Pool is open to the public from Memorial Day to

Labor Day on Saturdays and Sundays.

Sports Activities:

Women’s Volleyball

The women play on Wednesday evenings at Rombout Jr. High, October through

April. Members include age 16 and older.

Women’s Softball

The women play on Wednesday evenings at Memorial Park, May through July.

Members include age 16 and older.

Men’s Open Basketball

Open to men on Wednesday evenings at Rombout Jr. High and Forrestal School,

and Tuesday evenings at Glenham School, October through March. Members

include age 35 and older.

Men’s Over 35 Softball

Open to men on Thursday evenings at Memorial Park, April through October.

Members include age 35 and older.

Jazzercise

Open to men, women and teens every Tuesday and Thursday at Rombout Jr. High.

Girls Babe Ruth Softball

Open to ages 7 to 18 on weeknights, April through July at Memorial Park.

POP Warner Football

This program consists of Flag Teams, Pee Wee, Jr. Pee Wee and Midgets for ages

6 through 14. The games are played in the fall in Memorial Park.

Beacon Junior Baseball

This program consists of T Ball for ages 5 and 6, Little League for ages 7 through

12 and Babe Ruth for ages 13 through 15. The games are played at Memorial Park

from April to July.

Junior Bowling

The junior bowling program for ages 4 to 18 is played from September to May.

The program also includes bumper bowling and takes place at Southern Dutchess.



Karate This program is for ages 7 and up and taught every Friday evening at Sargent

Elementary School from September to June. Additional class for advanced

students taught at Forrestal Elem on Tuesday evenings.

Soccer The soccer program consists of 4 divisions: Midgets age 4-5, Pee Wee age 6-8,

Intermediate age 9-12 and Senior age 13-16. The games are played at Sargent and

Kerr Fields through fall and spring.

Tennis The six-week program is held once a week for 6 weeks at Memorial Park and is

for ages 9 and older. Tennis Clinic held at Beacon High School courts.

Beacon Community Center Program for Teens This program offers dances, movies, sega, the use of the gym and a drop in center

on Friday evenings in the Beacon Community Center located at 23 W. Center

Street in Beacon.

Youth Summer Basketball The program, for ages 6 to18, played in the summer at Green Street, South

Avenue, Martin Luther King Cultural Center and Riverfront Park. Youth

Basketball is held at Riverfront and South Avenues.

Baseball Camp The baseball camp is held one week in August at Memorial Park for boys and girls

aged 8 to 12.

Summer Playground Program This program is held for six weeks at Memorial Park and Green Street Park

beginning the first full week school is out. Registration is held in May for any

child ages 6 and older. The program offers arts and crafts, games, trips, swim

lessons and much more. Playground is for ages 6 through 12.

Senior Citizens:

Bowling This program is a 34-week season that is held at Southern Dutchess Bowl every

Friday afternoon.

Drop-In-Center The Beacon Community Center, located at 23 W. Center Street in Beacon, offers

activities such as art classes, arts and crafts, ceramics, aerobics, games, movies,



trips, and a light lunch every Thursday from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. Transportation

is also available if needed.

Beacon Seniors Beacon seniors meet first Wednesday of the month in the First Presbyterian

Church on Liberty Street in Beacon.

Forrestal Heights Forrestal Heights meets second Wednesday of the month in the Forrestal Heights

High-Rise on Wolcott Avenue in Beacon.

Gadabouts Gadabouts meet first and third Wednesday of the month at the Beacon Community

Center at 23 W. Center Street in Beacon.

St. John's Seniors St. John Seniors meets first Friday of the month in St. John's RC Church basement

on Willow Avenue in Beacon.

Parks:

The City of Beacon Park Department maintains all City owned parks - Memorial

Park located on Wilkes Street, South Avenue Park located on South Avenue,

Riverfront Park (10 acres) located on Red Flynn Drive, and Flannery Park located

on Green Street. All parks are open daily. The City’s park system include three

softball and three baseball fields, one football field, one soccer field, two tennis

courts, three basketball courts and three playgrounds. The Department marks

fields for all recreation programs and flood and maintain the ice rink when

weather permits.

The City also has two privately owned parks - Madam Brett Park (12 acres)

located on Tioranda Avenue and Mount Beacon park (235 acres) located at the

intersection of Howland and Wolcott Avenues.

E. Cultural Centers and Historic Places

Dia: Beacon Riggio Galleries The 300 square-foot art museum is located at 3 Beekman Street in Beacon. It

houses Dia Art Foundation’s renowned collection, comprising art from 1960s to

the present. The museum offers guided and unguided education tours for school

groups in grades K to12 as well as guided, unguided and group tours for others.

The facility also includes a bookshop and a café. Days and hours of operation

change with the season.



Howland Cultural Center The Howland Cultural Center is located at 477 Main Street in Beacon. The center

promotes arts and serves the community by welcoming groups to use the Center

for their special events, i.e.: meetings, recitals, rehearsals, fundraisers, etc. The

historic building, originally built as a library in 1872, is listed on National

Registers of Historic Places since 1972. The Center offers programs Thursday

through Sunday.

Tallix Art Foundry This fine art sculpture facility is located at 310 Fishkill Avenue in Beacon. It

fabricates and casts world-famous works Monday through Friday.

Howland Public Library The public Library is located at 313 Main Street in Beacon.

Madam Brett Homestead This Historic building is located at 50 Van Nydeck Avenue in Beacon. The

building which has 17 rooms of furnishings, porcelain, paintings, books, tools and

gardens is built in 1709 and is considered as the oldest homestead of the Dutchess

County. It is open second Saturday of the month April through December.

Mount Gulian Historic Site Mount Gulian Historic Site is a reconstructed 18th century Dutch homestead on 44

acres with unique 1740's Dutch barn and restored garden located at145 Sterling

Street in Beacon. It is open year-round for school and group tours.

Martin Luther King Cultural Center, Inc. It is located at 19 South Avenue in Beacon.

J:\DOCS2\100\Beacon\Basic Studies\Beacon Community Services and Facilities.draft.euk.doc

Inventory and Analysis City Utilities

City of Beacon Comprehensive Plan (March 2006) VI-1

VI. CITY UTILITIES

A. Water Supply

The City of Beacon is the major water supply source in the Southern Dutchess Area.

Beacon owns and operates its water supply, transmission and distribution system which

serves the entire City. The system also serves several households in the Town of Fishkill

in the Glenham / Dutchess Stadium area north of the City and west of Route 9D and the

Dutchess Junction area to the south of the City. The Fishkill Correctional Facility, with

over 4,000 inmates, uses approximately one-third of the City’s water supply, and is the

single largest water user.

The City’s estimated safe water yield, which is the amount of water that would be

available at a time of severe drought, currently exceeds demand by approximately 1.0

mgd (million gallons per day). The current reliable supply, estimated in 1992 by the

engineering firm O’Brien and Gere, is 3.45 mgd, while the current demand is

approximately 2.4 mgd. This situation is the reverse of Beacon’s water supply status at

the time of the 1974 Plan, when the safe yield was estimated to be 0.6 mgd below

average demand. Since that time, Beacon has drilled an additional high-volume well and

has entered into a lease with the Village of Fishkill for the rights to another high-output

well. Please refer to the table on the following page for a summary of the City’s water

supply information.

The water district's primary storage system is contained in three reservoirs outside of the

City’s boundaries. The Melzingah Reservoir, located south of Beacon in Dutchess

Junction, has a reported capacity of fifty million (50,000,000) gallons in a watershed area

of approximately 1.42 square miles. Although the Reservoir has a fairly large drainage

area, its small storage capacity causes frequent depletion during periods of low rainfall.

The Mount Beacon Reservoir has a storage capacity of approximately one hundred and

eighty-two million (182,000,000) gallons (the estimate included in the 1974 Development

Plan was 200 million gallons), more than three times that of Melzingah, but an extremely

small watershed area of 0.25 square miles. As a result, Mt. Beacon Reservoir is

frequently under its holding capacity while water flows over at Melzingah.

The Cargill Reservoir, located in Putnam County south of the Town of Fishkill, has a

storage capacity of one hundred and fifty-eight million (158,000,000) gallons and a

watershed area of 1.29 square miles. This reservoir now serves the City exclusively.

Formerly, the reservoir served portions of the Town of Fishkill and provided emergency

service to the Village of Fishkill; when the water treatment system of the City was



centralized in one plant in 1990, these direct connections from the reservoir could not be

continued.

Besides the storage capacity of three hundred and thirty million gallons provided by the

three Reservoirs, the City owns four storage tanks: a 0.5 million gallon capacity tank at

Cargill Reservoir; a 1 million gallon tank near Mount Beacon Park, a 1 million gallon

tank above the water treatment plant near Fairview Cemetery, and a 1 million gallon tank

off of Mountain Avenue.

Beacon Water Supply and Demand Summary

1974 2006 2020

Storage (units = million gallons)

Melzingah Reservoir 50 50 50

Mt. Beacon Reservoir 200 182 182

Cargill Reservoir 158 158 158

Water tanks two @ 0.5 mg ;

one @ 1.0 mg

one @ 0.5 mg;

three @ 1.0 mg

one @ 0.5

mg; three

@ 1.0 mg

Flows (units = million gallons per day)

Wells (safe yield)

one 0.7 mgd

two w/

combined total

of 1.54 mgd;

one 1.2 mgd

two w/

combined

total of

1.54 mgd;

one 1.2

mgd

Combined 3 Reservoirs (safe yield) 0.71 0.77 0.77

TOTAL capacity (safe yield) 1.4 3.45 3.45

Water leased to Town of Fishkill 0 -0.18 up to -0.5

TOTAL demand by City of Beacon -2.0 -2.4 -3.0

Water Supply Status risk of shortage reliable supply at capacity

The Beacon City Water District has two wells located near Fishkill Creek south of I-84 in

the Town of Fishkill. One well, approximately 180 feet deep, was put into operation in

1950, and the other, located in the same area, is about 250 feet deep, and was developed

after 1974. The two wells together are projected to deliver 1.54 million gallons of water

per day in the worst conditions of drought (the “safe yield’). The City also has a 30-year

lease to the use of Well Number 8, a shallow gravel-field well in the Village of Fishkill,

which provides 1.2 mgd.



The City built a water treatment plant in 1990 near the point at which the Fishkill Creek

enters the City. The plant has a current capacity to treat up to 4.0 mgd, and was designed

so that it could be expanded to treat up to 6.0 mgd.

The City has a contract to sell up to 0.5 mgd directly to the Town of Fishkill. Currently,

approximately 0.18 mgd is actually utilized by the Town. This usage is above and

beyond the water usage of properties within the City system that are outside of municipal

boundaries. These properties pay, on an individual basis, an out-of-town rate that is

twice the regular rate.

The distribution network system for the Beacon Water District consists primarily of 8",

10" and 12" feeder mains. The City has been continuously upgrading the water mains

since the 1970s. A 16" main was installed on Main Street in the late 1970s, which

relieved a water pressure problem during periods of high consumption. Water mains

under large portions of Route 9D, Tironda Avenue, and Leonard Street were also

replaced with 12", 12" and 8" mains, respectively. The water line from Cargill was

increased from a 10" main to an 18" main in order to accommodate the additional volume

from the two wells that it picks up along the Fishkill Creek, before emptying into the

water filtration plant. The mains from Melzingah and Mt. Beacon reservoirs have also

been replaced. The next priority for the distribution system is to replace a handful of

smaller undersized mains, such as 2" mains in low-density areas, which is necessary to

provide adequate pressure and volume for fire-fighting purposes. Also, as much as 20

percent of the distribution system consists of asbestos-based pipes installed from the late

1940s to the late 1950s. While it is generally accepted that these pipes do not pose a

threat to public health through drinking, there is a concern that when the water is

distributed through the air – such as when a person is taking a shower – the asbestos

fibers could be inhaled. These pipes continue to be replaced whenever roads are

upgraded throughout the City.

The City conducted a leak survey of the entire system in 2002, which detected leaks

totaling an estimated 180,000 gallons per day. All the leaks detected in this survey were

repaired.



B. Sewage Disposal

The City of Beacon has a comprehensive public sewerage system comprised of lateral

sewers serving most of the City. The 24 inch intercepting sewer, extending from the

prison at Asylum Road to Route 52 at Franklin Avenue and then running parallel to

Fishkill Creek, receives flow from a number of mains and sub-mains, and conducts the

sewage to the treatment plant for treatment and disposal, discharging into the Hudson

River via a subaquaeous outfall at the mouth of Fishkill Creek.

In 1972 the City completed the upgrading of its 1963 primary treatment plant. The $4.5

million project provided secondary treatment (removal of 90% BOD and SS) for the

City's residential, commercial and industrial wastes. The plant, expanded to a design

flow of 6 mgd, and with present usage of 3.0 to 3.5 mgd, has sufficient capacity to handle

flow from the entire drainage basin area for the foreseeable future. The City’s plant

handles approximately 1.0 mgd pumped into the City’s system from the Town of Fishkill.

The Village of Fishkill has its own sewage treatment plant, which empties into Fishkill

Creek.

While the City’s treatment plant is more than adequate to handle sewage volume, during

rainstorms or other weather events that increase water flow within the drainage basin, the

treatment plant receives up to 10 or more mgd, or 4.0 mgd more than its effective

capacity. The combined sewage and stormwater does not overflow the system, but the

plant is not able to treat the combined flows for the appropriate time periods. Over the

past ten years, the City has spent one million dollars in capital improvement funds

detecting sewer and stormwater linkages and separating them. Technologies used to

detect problem areas have included smoke testing, video cameras, and sewer flow meters.

J:\DOCS2\100\Beacon\City Development Plan\Basic Studies\City Utilities 3.doc

Inventory and Analysis Environmental Resources

City of Beacon Comprehensive Plan (March 2006) VII-1

Table VII-1: City of Beacon Slopes

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

This chapter contains the basic information concerning the City’s environmental resources,

which refer to the natural, often interdependent, components of an area's ecosystem. An

understanding of the natural environment provides a basis for both sound development practices

and land conservation. The environmental resources in Beacon that are covered in this chapter

include: topography and steep slopes, groundwater resources, drainage basins and surface water

resources, floodplains, wetlands, soils, and critical environmental areas. This information can be

used to direct development to the most suitable area, preserving sensitive lands and formulating

environmental protection regulations.

A. Topography and Steep Slopes

The physical contour, or topography, of the land is shaped by the interaction of climate and

geology. The basic topographic pattern of hills and valleys reflect the structure and variation in

the composition of the underlying bedrock as modified by erosion forces of weather and

glaciation. A map of Topography and Surface Hydrology is provided in the Environmental

Features map.

The City of Beacon is characterized by an irregular pattern of hills and valleys ranging from near

sea level along the Hudson River to 510 feet along the eastern border of the City. The slope of

an area refers to its degree of steepness and is expressed as a percentage of incline from the

horizon. The use of land with slopes up to 15% for development purposes usually does not

require any special treatment for slopes other than normal erosion control methods. Slopes of

15% and over are generally classified as steep for land use purposes, because they often have the

potential for erosion, runoff and access problems. Development on slopes from 15 to 25%

requires closer control and possibly special design consideration. Slopes over 25% usually

present significant restrictions to development; these areas must be closely monitored to avoid

serious detrimental environmental impacts if development is considered.

As shown in Table VII-1, the vast majority of

Beacon is within the 0-15% slope range.

However, there are scattered portions of the

City containing slopes between 15% to 25%

and a small area of slopes greater than 25%, on

the eastern boundary of the City. These areas

are predominantly in the southeastern portion

of the City along the municipal boundary with

the Town of Fishkill (refer to the Environmental Features map). The more severe slopes are

unsuitable for development and are usually dedicated or otherwise conserved.

Slope Acres % of Total

Less than 15% 2821 91%

Between 15% and 25% 259 8%

Greater than 25% 30 1%

Total 3110 100%



B. Groundwater Resources Groundwater is the supply of water beneath the earth’s surface. After precipitation is absorbed

by the soil, it travels beneath the surface and is stored in a water-saturated underground layer of

earth, unconsolidated deposits, or porous stone. An aquifer is any soil or rock formation that

contains water and permits sufficient water movement to yield water to wells and springs.

There is an aquifer located in the eastern portion of the city, running in a northeast to southwest

direction following Fishkill Creeks. Aquifers play an important role in the regional water supply

and should be an important component in land use decisions.

C. Drainage Basins and Surface Water Resources

A drainage basin is a large watershed that catches precipitation and drains it over or below the

earth’s surface to a specific waterbody. Flowing from high ground to low and following the

contours of the land, surface water flows from the headwaters where streams begin, to the mouth

where the stream reaches its destination in a larger waterbody, such as a lake or river. The

topographical ridges that nearly encircle a drainage basin and separate the drainage of one basin

from another define watershed drainage basin boundaries. It is important to note, however, that a

hierarchy of drainage basins covers any land area, such that each major drainage basin is made

up of smaller sub-basins, and which a combination of several major drainage basins may form a

larger regional drainage basin.

The City falls within one major drainage basin known as the Hudson-Wappinger River Basin, as

designated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Fishkill Creek is

the main stream that flows in a northeast to southwesterly direction through the City of Beacon

toward the Hudson River which forms the western boundary of the City. A portion of the

headwaters of Dry Brook are located within the eastern portion of the City, before flowing south

to Beacon Reservoir in the Town of Fishkill. The City’s drainage basins can be further

subdivided into two sub-basins: Fishkill Creek which contains the stream by the same name as

well as Dry Brook, and Hudson River which contains all lands northeast of the Fishkill Creek

where surface water flows directly toward the Hudson River.

D. Floodplains

Floodplains are low-lying land areas adjacent to rivers and streams that are subject to recurring

inundation from heavy rains or severe snowmelts. Left undisturbed, floodplains provide many

beneficial functions, including natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and

ground water recharge. A "100-year floodplain" describes an area subject to a 1% probability of

a certain size flood occurring in any given year. Since floodplains can be mapped, the boundary

of the 100-year flood is commonly used in floodplain mitigation programs to identify areas

where the risk of flooding is significant. In reviewing floodplains maps, however, it is important

to note that the locations of floodplain boundaries are not static. Floodplain filling, changes in



the amount of impervious land cover, and other activities that alter the drainage characteristics of

a watershed can affect the shape and size of floodplains within that watershed.

The 100-year flood plains, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Administration

(FEMA), within the City are shown on the Environmental Features map. The FEMA 100-year

floodplains in Beacon are generally located along Fishkill Creek and the Hudson River and some

low-lying areas throughout the City. Property owners can review more detailed FEMA maps to

determine if their property is located within a floodplain boundary.

E. Wetlands

Wetlands are lands that are flooded or saturated at a frequency and duration that allow

hydrophytic vegetation (plants suited to wet conditions) to have a competitive edge over dry land

species. Different kinds of wetlands can exist depending upon location, topography, geology,

and hydrology, and water type (fresh, salt, or brackish). Freshwater wetlands are divided into

three ecological systems (palustrine, lacustrine, and riverine). Palustrine wetlands are mostly

vegetated wet areas called marshes, swamps and bogs, but may also include small shallow

ponds. Lacustrine wetlands are those wetlands associated with lakes and reservoirs, while

riverine wetlands are those wetlands associated with rivers. In their natural condition, wetlands

supply numerous ecological, economic and cultural benefits, including water quality protection,

flood control, erosion control, fish and wildlife habitats, groundwater recharge, and opportunities

for recreation, aesthetic appreciation and education.

The City of Beacon contains both freshwater and tidal wetlands. State Freshwater Wetlands

maps, prepared by the NYSDEC, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, prepared by the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) show the general locations of most wetlands

within the City (see Environmental Features map).

Wetlands within the City are protected at the State or federal level, or some combination of each.

Pursuant to the Freshwater Wetlands Act, the NYSDEC regulates wetlands that are at least 12.4

acre or, if smaller, have unusual local importance. The NYSDEC also regulates a 100-foot

buffer surrounding these protected wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also protects

wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, irrespective of size.

One state-regulated wetland occurs within the City. The State-regulated wetlands are ranked by

the NYSDEC in one of four classes ranging from Class I, which provide the most benefits, to

Class IV, which provide the fewest benefits. The wetlands are classified based on several

factors, including their: vegetative cover; ecological associations; special features; hydrological

and pollution control features; and distribution and location. The one State regulated wetland

within Beacon is a Class II wetland. Wetland protection is important for groundwater recharge,

water quality, natural wildlife habitats, and flood control.

F. Soils

Soils are a dynamic natural resource that consists of a physical matrix containing mineral

particles and organic matter, which provide a chemical environment and biological setting for



the exchange of water, nutrients, air and heat. An understanding of soil types and their

characteristics and development limitations is useful in City planning. The Soils map shows

four general soil types that occur within the City of Beacon: Husdon-Vergennes-Raynham,

Cardigan-Dutchess-Nassau, Bernardston-Pittstown, and Hollis-Chatfield-Rock Outcrop. The

general soil map shows map units as broad areas that have a distinctive pattern of soils, relief,

and drainage. Each map unit represents an area on the landscape and the associated soil

properties and limitations of that landscape. As such, the map units can be used to determine

the suitability and potential of a soil for specific uses. Of the four general map units found

within the City of Beacon, numerous detailed soil map units are found. Detailed descriptions of

the soil series and soil map units are available in the 1991 Dutchess County Soil Survey,

prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. The following is a brief description of the general

soil map units found within the City of Beacon:

Table VII-2: Soil Map Units

Soil Description Hudson-Vergennes-Raynham

This unit consists of soils that formed in glaciolacustrine deposits with a medium to

high content of silt and clay. The landscape is generally gently sloping and is

dissected by deep drainageways from the main north-south terrace adjacent to the

Hudson River. Slopes are dominantly 3 to 15 percent but are as much as 45 percent

in some dissected areas, and as low as 0 percent in lowlands.

Most areas of this unit are used for cultivated crops, hay, or residential development.

Slow permeability, a seasonal high water table, clayey texture, slope, erodibility, and

frost action are the main limitations if this unit is used for community development.

Cardigan-Dutchess-Nassau

This unit consists of soils on hills formed in glacial till influenced by the underlying

shale bedrock. The landscape generally consists of folded bedrock ridges oriented

north-south. Outcroppings of shale bedrock are common, particularly in steep and

very steep areas. Slopes range from 1 to 70 percent.

Most areas of this unit are used as cropland, pastureland, woodland, or residential

development. Slope, depth to bedrock, and common rock outcrops are the main

limitations in the areas used for community development. Bernardston-Pittstown

This unit consists of soils on hilltops and hillsides that formed in glacial till with a

large content of shale and phyllite. Slopes range from 3 to 45 percent.

Some areas of this unit are used for growing cultivated crops and hay. Other areas

are used as woodland or residential development. Erosion is a hazard in woodlots

managed for timber. Slow percolation rates in the substratum, the seasonal high

water table, and slope are the main limitations in the areas used for community

development. Hollis-Chatfield-Rock Outcrop This unit consists of soils formed in glacial till dominated by granite, gneiss, and

schist. The landscape consists of hillsides and hilltops, with very complex

topography and steep micro-relief. Bedrock exposures, with very steep to nearly

vertical bedrock escarpments, are a prominent part of the landscape.

Slope is dominantly 5 to 30 percent, but ranges from 1 to 70 percent. Most areas of

this unit are wooded or are used for community development. Depth to bedrock,

scattered bedrock outcrops, and steep slopes are the main limitations in areas used for

agriculture and community development.



G. Depth to Bedrock

In the City of Beacon, the depth to bedrock ranges from greater than five feet (60 inches) to 10

inches. Soils where the bedrock is near the surface may present many problems for

development. Blasting is often required to build foundations. Septic disposal is a problem

because the effluent flows along the impermeable rock rather than percolating down through the

soil. Shallow depth to bedrock soils are also a problem for maintaining mature forest cover.

Since roots cannot penetrate the rock to any great extent, trees are susceptible to being blown

over during storms with heavy rains and high winds. The Depth to Bedrock map shows areas of

the City that have a shallow depth to bedrock (less than 60 inches).

J:\DOCS2\100\Beacon\City Development Plan\Basic Studies\Inventory and Analysis Document\Environmental Resources.doc