Residents express their concerns about proposed housing development

The August 23rd Zoning Board of Appeals meeting had a full complement of board members during this meeting and began with public hearings that had been adjourned in July's meeting. The room was very full and the residents waited patiently for the main attraction -- the public hearing for the proposed development at Alpine Commons.

The evening began with the engineer for the applicant requesting variances for the rebuilding of a structure at 33 Middlebush Road - they want to rebuild the structure in the same footprint, but since the original building doesn't meet the setback standards they needed to get several variances. A resident had questions about the wetlands and the use of the building, but was directed to the Planning Board Review. This seemed to be a bit of a theme during the night -- ping ponging back and forth between the two boards. If anyone can explain how CarMax didn't require any variances -- they were able to obtain "waivers" from the Planning Board -- but other projects require the involvement (and fees?) of both boards I would be open to a tutorial. I have not been able to discern a pattern in the 3 years of attending both meetings. The variances were approved.

A request to install an unground pool on Fox HIll Road, requiring a setback variance because of the nature of the property was next up. The applicant had reduced his request for the amount of the variance to the rear property line, based on the unsubtle hints from a planning board member during the last meeting, let's hope that suits their need, since the adjoining property is owned by the Town and their pool will not be viewed by any neighbors. This variance was granted.

The on-going discussion about fencing on Spook HIll and Roberts Road -- was something to behold -- with the board agreeing to a variance for a 6 foot piece of fencing on Spook Hill -- and "approving a 4 foot fence" for the remainder of Spook Hill and Roberts Road -- which didn't occur to anyone (the board or the professionals) that a variance for something allowed in the code isn't required -- but it was approved none the less. The applicant showed admirable restraint and professionalism throughout the process.

A request for a set-back variance of 20 feet (where 25 feet required) for a shed on All Angels Hill Road was approved.

An architect representing clients wishing to build a Mother/Daughter extension on their home (which is on nearly 5 acres on Smith Crossing Road) provided a virtuoso performance, underscoring the benefit of having experts represent you. He basically was educating the board on the "intention" of code and what their responsibilities are when deciding on variances... and if absurd request are made by the board, there will be absurd counteractions by the applicants ... which his clients did not want to do -- their desire is to "do it right". The debate centered around the size of a loft that the applicant was requesting to put into their addition -- why this is important -- given the size of the property etc. was never articulated, other than the board had recently denied a request for a loft by another applicant -- which by the way -- was on a much smaller lot size. The architect conceded that he would reduce the overall square footage of the total project by 200 feet, which seemed to please the board as they went ahead and granted the requested variances (some to get a long installed pool in compliance with code that had changed after the pool was installed).

Then the main event happened. A lawyer for the developer wishing to build 144 dwelling units -- where 28 is allowed (this number continues to fluctuate all over the place from 96, to 48 to 28 -- and is not helped by the towns publications) and for a variance for the height of the buildings. The parking request has been pulled (again, the town's documentation is out of date). The public hearing began with prepared remarks by Joseph Cavaccini - who outlined that the Town currently has 40% of its homes in "multi-family" units, several mobile home parks -- is geographically smaller than neighboring towns - where 10% of the homes are in multi-family units -- indicating that the town is already densely populated. Also, neighboring towns have dedicated police forces, which Wappinger does not. The size of the requested variances are very large (considering this seems to play into the boards decision -- whether for a backyard pool, loft extension etc.) and that the precedence this would set for other similarly zoned properties (shopping center). In addition, the School Superintendent has indicated that the elementary and junior high schools are at/over capacity, contradicting the developers assertion that there is plenty of school capacity.

Many other members of the public spoke, including Robin Licari, who asked for a clarification on the definition of "workforce housing" and the developer indicated that the complex would be 100% "workforce housing".

Individual residents are concerned about traffic, Meyers Corner Road being used as cutthrough to Route 376, the views from neighboring streets -- especially those at a higher elevation who would be treated to staring at the rooftops of the complex, the strains on volunteer fire departments, part time police departments and limited ambulance services. The complex would have to be service by the United Wappinger Water System, an infrastructure paid for by current town residents.

The meeting wrapped up by the town attorney asserting that residents could still express their concerns in writing to the board, that the applicant needs time to respond to the concerns -- and that the project would then head back to the Planning Board -- which directly contradicts a letter that the Planning Board wrote in February of this year - indicating that the ZBA would be the lead agency on this project, and they listed their concerns that they would like the Zoning Board to consider -- again -- the ping pong between boards without a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities.