Lesson in Site Plan Amendments?

The May 19th Town of Wappinger Planning Board Meeting offered interesting examples of the town's site plan amendment "process". With 4 of the 7 members in attendance, the board had two topics on the agenda for discussion.

• 561-563 Old State Road. This is a project where the applicant is working to rehabilitate a very neglected building into residence and a small office. The building is between two roads. As anyone who has embarked on even minor construction projects ... even with the best laid plans, know there can be changes required -- how the town oversees, tracks these changes is really a bit of a mystery. This applicant, who is working with an engineering firm who was not represented at this meeting, came forward to explain some of the changes to the original site plan. Questions asked by t he board/town staff included:

  • More trees were removed than the original site plan suggested - is this a material change to the original site plan?

    • The applicant explained that 4 to 5 trees were removed - one had storm damage, another an arborist recommended removing because of damage and 2 others had issue.

  • More paving than originally planned. Will this cause storm water run-off issues?

    • The applicant explained that the building's foundation, built in the 1800s, was leaking, allowing water to get into the basement -- with the additonal paving, the basement has been dry.

    • The Town is concerned about water flowing into the storm drain and the potential of unsafe road conditions/an overflowing storm drain.

  • The Lighting plan, while the planner acknolwedged that the lighting plan changes complied with the town's code, the lights are note sited as originally planned.

  • Enclosure for a dumpster was on the original site plan

    • The applicant pointed out that the basic use of the building is residential and there isn't going to be a need for a dumpster.

So -- the applicant will have to submit an updated site plan - noting the changes. The Town Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer will have to make a site visit to ensure that the storm water flows are appropriately handled AND the Planning Board will make a site visit on May 27th (a Strong Reminder by the ZBA attorney that discussion is to be LIMITED at the site visit, in accordance with Open Meeting Laws) to see if the tree removal and other site plan changes are acceptable.

So glad to see such meticulous review of submitted site plans, and since there hasn't been similar discussions, meetings regarding other larger projects in the town... say... on a very busy corner in a small hamlet ... near an iconic Nesting Doll Shop... can one presume that the project is progressing with no need for site plan changes?

• The second topic for discussion is the request to amend a site plan for a T-Mobile monopole on Don Bosco Blvd. - raising the pole 8 feet from 79 feet to 87 feet. What is particularly interesting about this project -- is that apparently there are several open building permits.. which have never been closed out (and one presumes or renewed), and the Building Department head chose this request as an opportunity to start following up on that issue. (So, if there wasn't a request to ammend the site plan... this would have gone on for how long? are there fines involved, like some residents have recently discovered?)

• There was no discussion about the reason for this request (one presumes better coverage, etc. etc.) The discussion included - the need for an RF Engineer, who the RF Engineer should be, should we use the same one used in other Telecomm projects (for which the town paid and then the RF Subject Matter Expert never appeared to explain his report, or to ask questions - leaving the board members to casually explain their interpretation of his report to the residents asking questions), There was a whole bunch of confusion about which plan was dated/submitted and different plan versions (wowzah... what kind of filing system is in place?) the date of an FAA letter (a year before the initial application). The applicant explained that another FAA letter would be requested after town approvals. The board did decide that this would be an "Uncoordinated review" (meaning that no other agency would be involved), a discussion about whether the pictures of the site which were submitted (leaf on) were sufficient to determine the visual impact. Basically a whole bunch of additional work has to be done before the applicant can come back.