Operatic Performances at the ZBA

The May 9 Zoning Board meeting seemed to be a routine meeting as it began, despite that the chairman was not in attendance -- requiring an announcement to the applicants that they could play ZBA version of the price is right, by going ahead with their appeal/vote during the meeting OR postponing the decision to an evening when all 5 board members are in attendance.

Public Hearings

The request for a variance for additional structures on a 59.30 acre property on Widmer Road was adjourned for two weeks, because of a delay in the pre-req processes.

A request for a variance in set-back requirements so that extensions to an existing house on Sergeant Palmateer Way was postponed as the board expressed their concern that the extension for a covered landing in the front of the house would be too close to the road and has the individual making the request considered a side entrance. The property owner chose to adjourn for two weeks while he consulted with his architect.

A request for a variance for existing screened porch and decks on Applesauce Lane was approved with a condition that a shed on the property be removed.

A request for fencing (would like 6 foot instead of 4 foot) around a 21.4 acre property on Route 376 and legalizing accessory buildings was adjourned until the next meeting because another garage was "discovered" during the site visit and grading/tree felling appears to have occurred without a grading permit.

Discussions

A request to continue to install a 6 foot wooden dog eared fence on Spook Hill Road and a vinyl fence on Roberts Road sparked a bit of a discussion where the board expressed their opinion that a four foot fence would be better and achieve the objectives of the property owner - and that a 6 foot fence doesn't fit the neighborhood -- ( the property owner pointed out who pointed out that a neighbor has a 6 foot fence). There is also a discussion about grading of a berm, what was existing, what as new and if a grading permit was required. An update to their property's survey is required and the discussion was postponed until a June meeting.

A Larissa Lane property owner presented their request to have an existing shed, which replaced an old shed, legalized.

Robinson Lane property owners are replacing a current above ground pool with a slightly larger pool, requiring a set-back variance.

Hackensack Heights Road property owners require a set-back variance for a shed that was on the property when they purchased the property.

THEN.... the Alpine Commons Multifamily Workforce Housing project. So... to refresh the owners of Alpine Commons originally tried to get the Town Board to make updates to the Shopping Center Codes -- which would allow them more flexibility in their developing/subdividing the property. The Town Board, hopefully learning their lesson from other Zoning Code updates, wanted more specific details from the developer and were concerned about the unintended consequences to the other areas which had that zoning.

So the Developer has gone to the Zoning Board -- requesting 3 variances to the zoning code - allowing them to develop "workforce" housing.

1 - Density -- their assertion is that 93 units are allowed in the current code. They would like 144 units.

2 - 50 foot building height and 3.5 stories.. where 35 feet and 2.5 stories are allowed.

3 - 238 parking spaces ... where the town code requires 282 parking spaces (remember there is a sea of parking at Alpine Commons).

The Architect for the project presented a map -- showing that where the proposed development would be built is an area of about 9.9 acres -- but 7.3 acres would be disturbed -- and the 2.6 acres of wetland would be between two building areas.

Here's where the debate occurs... the assertion of 93 units as "allowed" depends on how the code is interpreted and what is considered buildable. Does one say that the area is 7.3 acres or 9.9 acres -- where the code says 3 units per acre is allowed? OR does one count the whole area.. 86 acres? And the formulas for residential housing are different from the formulas of commercial building and are actually allow more square footage of buildings... a concern when the market dynamics are less requirements for commercial space and more requirement for housing space.

So the lawyers (and the developer's lawyer throwing phrases like "Wappinger has a fair housing issue" and "Wappinger's workforce housing is over 30 years old" etc is not helpful) .. are debating all of that ...with smiles on their faces, as well as the Building Administrator... fully understanding the debate.

Then the town attorney decided to use an unfortunate analogy... saying the "the Zoning Board is like golfers... they can only play the ball they are given... they don't make the zoning Code." This triggered a reaction among two ZBA members.. who started slamming their papers/materials and huffing a bit... the acting chairman got up and announced the meeting was OVER and stormed out of the meeting.

The other board members (3), looking a bit flummoxed, asked for an executive session... and off they went... for a long time.

When the 3 came back.. they announced that the Building administrator would interpret the code.. and announce at the first meeting in June ... and that the developer could then appeal.

The board also asked, if the developer could point out parking spaces in the rest of Alpine Commons, basically in the BJ's lot, that could be available to residents.... and would that obviate the need for the 3rd variance.

The Lawyer representing the developer pointed out that the Town's Zoning Code is out of date and has created an "overpacking" situation (NOTE: This is current thinking in the professional planning community, that in the US codes have created a situation of too many parking spaces... and the associated cost/taking away from needed housing - https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1175035781/how-parking-explains-everything).

So a few questions.. How did we get to the point, where an application for a variance was accepted for the 93 to 144 variance request.. without the 93 baseline asserted by the developer either agreed to, or disputed -- before both the developer and the ZBA spent time and resources on the project?

Why were town's professional staff seemingly unprepared for this discussion... reading the code real time to parse through it? These plans have been available for months. Who are the town's professionals supporting? The residents? Remember - the Town Board has a report on their desks about the importance of protecting the land in the Town's water shed areas to ensure quality of EVERYONE's WATER.

What is the status of the list from the Planning Board on the 11 points with their concerns?

What is the larger plan from the town? How does this fit in? Adding more units.. means more schools, more traffic (and an effort to encourage residents at Alpine Commons to not have to travel for a cup of coffee, their mail, a quart of milk seems to run into roadblocks - financing/architectural concerns... and seriously BJs does not sell small amounts of things..there isn't place in a small apartment for the giant size products sold by BJs) ... and yes.. .more fire equipment.. especially if additional stories are allowed... all costs to be born by the residents of Wappinger. What is the town's Average Monthly Income (AMI) used to determine the tiers of affordable housing, how can town residents be given preference to Workforce Housing? Where are the jobs (IBM's Chip Manufacturing not going to drive the requirement for workers who need AMI as has been alluded to)? What is the status of the water/sewer infrastructure to Alpine Commons... is it prepared for 144 housing units.. which have very different usage requirements than large warehouse stores. Are the support systems of the town - police, fire, ambulance services, mail services, school services, social services, senior services, youth services/day care, medical services, government services - prepared to manage such an increase change?