One size does not fit all

The April 1 Planning Board meeting had a short agenda, but the projects with scheduled Public Hearings brought more questions than answers -- requiring both public hearings to be adjourned. One would hope that the public (and the board) would have more information provided to them before a public hearing is set -- and that the professionals who are advising the board have completed their research and made that information available.

The first Public Hearing was for a request to subdivide 3.1 acres into two residential lots on the corner of New Hackensack Road and Widmer Road. Neighbors on Widmer road explained that the area is very wet and expressed concern that with the removal of trees and changes to the property will create a situation where their property is affected by excessive water. (Where is the Town's Storm Water Consultant? Why is that resource not being used for this project?) The engineer working with the applicant explained that the drainage will become more efficient with his recommendations, but did say he didn't know the status of the current catch basins. The engineer has sent information for the Army Corp of Engineers and DEC regarding the wetlands and did state that a wetlands disturbance permit - for temporary disturbance - would be requested. Information about the catch basins, storm water and additional information from the Board of Health is needed, prompting the board to adjourn the public hearing until April 15.

The second public hearing involved a property of 21.28 acres on Route 376 - stretching to Dogwoodhill Road. The applicant would like to expand a current structure on the property to become a caretaker's cottage. They were directed to provide a map with a hypothetical subdivision for the caretaker's cottage with another lot for the main house on the property, showing septic and water sources. A shed/garage did not meet the setback requirements for the hypothetical property line, so a new map will have to be drawn to meet the setback requirements. It was also noted that the water source for the main house was not on the map and a request to update the site plan to include that was made. Then a long discussion about how many "curb cuts" or driveways are allowed in the Town of Wappinger. Apparently in 2020, the town passed a law stating that only 1 curb cut is allowed per lot. (This has been used to push property owners to remove long standing driveways/access areas in other projects recently. Admittedly a lot of a 1/4 acre should probably have only "one" curb cut... a property of over 20 acres... may need to be treated differently - something that the current code doesn't seem to acknowledge. And another thing.. very few roads in the town actually have "curbs", so what problem was this code update trying to solve and did it acknowledge that there are a broad range of properties, with many shapes, from duplexes to large farms in the town?) A long discussion about how the 911 system treats such properties, the lawyer representing the applicant stated that there are photographs dating to before 2004 which show two driveways on the property - one from 376, one from Dogwoodhill Road. Then a long discussion about the placement of a dumpster at the Dogwoodhill Road entrance, which devolved into a discussion about trash cans and whether the applicant should be using trash cans vs. dumpster... this seemed very far removed from the original request which is to build a caretaker's cottage on the property.... and perhaps the public hearing was premature if this was going to be a comprehensive review of the whole property and the trash removal processes. The Public hearing is adjourned to May 6.

Then, what should have been a very simple action - a lot line re-alignment between two properties in Chelsea. First - the resolution as printed had several typos/errors. Ok, we all make mistakes, but it to get to the point that the applicant/one board member were the ones having to point this out -- the professionals not catching it by reviewing it ahead of time is embarrassing/unprofessional. So the resolution was passed, with amendments. But then -- the applicant -- having received this resolution in the mail -- asked very legitimate questions about what is next - what steps have to happen re: changing deeds, filing them etc. There was lots of advice provided real-time, with the applicants frantically taking notes ... but what kind of help, support was provided before this point? Of course the documentations, filings etc. all have to be done error free (we have too many examples of previous errors causing problems for homeowners years later)... but clear, step by step instructions should be provided to applicants with clear directions on who is responsible for each step ahead of time, properly setting expectations. That is the kind of service our local government should be providing residents...not a gauntlet with the specter of additional costs, denials, requirements that one hopes to survive in tact.