Small business updates reviewed by Planning Board

The April 15 Town of Wappinger Planning Board agenda included updates planned by Small Businesses in the town, as well as a discussion on the installation of Ground Mounted Solar Panels.

Public Hearings

The adjourned public hearing for DC Sports at 1630 Route 9 was re-opened. The front yard setback variance that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted was reported. The Planning Board's visit to the site on April 1 to look at the lighting determined that the lighting levels at the perimeter of the establishment were acceptable. The Zoning Board's recommendation that additional screening in the front of the property was not accepted by a vote of the board. The additional ZBA recommendation that a "hold harmless" agreement would be prepared was also not accepted by the planning board (in agreement with the Planning Board's attorney) - the Planning Board voted to ask the Town Planner to prepare a resolution approving the site plan - to be voted on during the May 6 Planing Board Meeting.

The adjourned public hearing Suben LLC subdivision on the corner of New Hackensack Road and Widmer Road (3.1 acres subdivided into two residential lots) was reopened. A resident did speak about her concerns about the impacts of water on adjacent properties since the property in question collects a lot of water during storms, she also asked about the location of the septic systems for any future buildings and the location of driveways. The Board Chair assured her that the applicant would be forwarded her questions and they would be required to answer them in upcoming Planning Board sessions. Since the applicant is waiting for other agencies to provide their response to the project, the applicant had requested that the public hearing be adjourned until May 6.

Discussions

The firm proposing to work with a property owner on Dugan Lane then came forward to present a proposal for a 16.4 kW ground mounted solar array consisting of 40 panels on 2.8 acres. They had received feedback from the board's lawyer and planner on Thursday and Friday of last week, and have not had a chance to prepare a response. When they called the building department on Monday the 15th to explain that, they were advised to still come to the meeting to meet with the planning board to explain the project. It was also mentioned that the property owner has some property violations with the town, which the solar company was not aware of, and that until the violations were resolved, a building permit would not be issued -- but that the project could continue to be discussed with the planning board. The board members asked a number of questions about the project (why not roof top mounted? the house is very shaded, where are the shared driveways in relation to the proposed solar panels, how would the panels be screened? Is 16.4 kW large for an accessory to a single family home (no, and technology a few years ago would have required 80 panels) a Long Form EAF is requested (Environmental assessment). So with that to-do list the solar firm representative went off to further work on the application. The planning board also decided that a site visit would be appropriate so that they would have a more complete understanding of the impact of the solar panels... after reviewing their busy schedules - the board determined that they would make a site visit on April 24 at 5:00.

The Father/Son owners of Al's Auto Repair on Middlebush Road came forward to explain that they are no longer using part of their property as a truck rental depot and would like to rent to a Tow Truck Operator (Superior Towing) to accommodate two tow trucks as well as to install a fence (chain link/covered - 15' x 30' ...8 feet tall) to house any towed vehicles. This adaptation of use requires an amended site plan and a special use permit. The original site plan was prepared in 1997 and cost a considerable amount of money. The engineer who prepared the original plan has retired. The owners expressed their concern that going through this process would not make fiscal sense ($1000 application fee, escrow fees and fees to have an engineer update the site plan to reflect the new use) and were not interested in repeating the costs incurred originally. The applicant was advised that perhaps the engineer sold his practice and another engineer might be in possession of the files, so the updated site plan may be less expensive. The Board members complimented the applicants for the neat appearance of their property (oh that we would have more business enterprises with that aesthetic and community spirit). The board members also asked about vehicles with leaking fluids (they would be stored in the building while the leaks are addressed) - though one board member thought all the fluids would leak out while being towed (?!?).

We'll see how supportive the process is to long-time business owners in the Town who are working hard to adapt their business and contribute positively to a clean, neat town.

The Planning Board also asked that the Building Department materials be updated to indicate that applicants should be using the EAF mapper when preparing their applications - otherwise the process will be lengthened as the EAF forms will have to be redone for professional review.