What is "Desirable"?

The March 3 Town of Wappinger Planning Board Meeting began with a difficult discussion with the Architect working with the Iglesia Cristiana El Sembrador Church in Hughsonville. The Architect may have impeccable design/engineering credentials, but it is very clear he needs to spend more time understanding the Town's building code and the processes for providing the required information to the Planning Board so that the appropriate approvals can be provided. The leaders of the congregation clearly want to get started on the improvements the church desires (an addition for meeting rooms, community space, office and bathrooms to enable them to move those activities from an inadequate basement space).

The majority of the discussion was spent on their septic system (the records on the details of the current system are not on file - but it is pumped out twice a year) - and whether a letter from the county board of health saying that the current system would be adequate if there was no change of use at the church. The Architect presuming that was enough, but the board and staff explaining that a letter from the Board of Health was needed on whether the proposed changes WOULD contitute a change of use, that the congregations assertion that there was no change of use was not sufficient. It took some time to make that point... let's hope for everyone's sake that it was well understood. Questions were also raised about the sheds (very old, are they in the appropriate set-backs?, lightening - a photometric plan will be required, parking - where is the parking needed for accessibilty needs - that needs to be on the plan, the cemetary -- a board member "helpfully" pointing out that the cemetary is a "mess" with out any context or specifics -- perhaps training in how to tactfully make ones point is needed for some members - and the Pastor of the church pointing out the age of the cemetary, that there is a barrier in place, no need for the suggested fence - which is clear that the member has only a slight understanding of the site). The Board Chair acknowledged that the staff's response to an applicant's request should be more timely - and that the applicant didn't have to respond at the very next meeting, but could take time to work through the details before requesting time on the board's agenda. The Board did grant the architect approval to reach out to the Town Engineer and Planner outside of the meeting times to work through details.

Next up - Bottini Fuel - presented an amended site plan - proposing an asphalt storage pad and associated site improvements on a 33.44 acre parcel off of Airport Drive. The Town's alternate engineer provided a very thorough analysis of the project - including the strong recommendation to the Town -- that the buidling department look at the original site plan and determine that the current building etc. matched the original site plan (something that should be done for every project, but was clearly a novel idea to those involved). A 10,000 square foot warehouse is proposed - to enable the storage of refuse containers and empty cans. There will be no requirement for additional parking at the site and it is expected only 1 to 2 trucks a day will be traveling to the site. There will be a requirement to wash the containers, using water from an exisiting, requiring repiping of the current water line and a filter on the storm drain. The topology of the site - which includes a berm, and plantings in the landscape with ensure that views from neighboring residents will not be impacted.

The Board agreed to an "uncoordinated review" process.

Then the star discussion of the evening was kicked off by the board (except for 1 member who feels strongly, and correctly, that discussions should be held in public session) adjourning to a client/attorney session for 30 minutes. When they returned, a discussion about the proposed Acadia Place subdivision off of Old Hopewell Road and Cedar Hill Road on 89.55 acres was held. The proposed plan, if you recall, is for 12 single family homes and 66 multifamily homes in 11 different buildings. The Town Board sent this plan to the Planning Board with the remit to decide on the "appropriateness of the plan". Please remember that this is being planned with the guidance of town code that a previous Town Board tried to remove, but in their clumsy efforts, goofed it up and the court made them reinstate the code (and pay attorney fees). So - the other element of this story is that the code specifies that if there is no municipal water/sewer available -- 100 acres is required. If municipal water/sewer available -- then can have less than 100 acres. While this property is in the municipal water/sewer district... the difficulty is that Tri-Muni is NOT currently accepting new applications for additional hook-ups because of an I&I problem that needs to be addressed. The Engineer supporting the project tried to make the case, that Tri-Muni does technically have capacity, if the I&I problem is resolved so therefore the density of the project shouldn't be an issue, and oh by the way, there is a proposed on-site sewer facility that has been included in the plan - which could possibly be considered "municipal". The Board then went through what the code requires for such a project 1) innovative use of land, 2) present by water bodies etc, 3) efficient use of land 4) Innovation in design/variety of desgin and 5) a social/community element. The board expressed that 3 of the 5 requirements were not met by the plan and also expressed reservations about how smoothly an HOA could function in the proposed application. (The Board has been made wise to difficulties with HOAs meeting their requirements, especially 25 to 30 years on when infrastructures start to fail and the homeowners can't afford the fixes.... and then the town taxpayers must come to the rescue - we see you Woodhill Green and Nature Preserve). A request for a narrative that addressed the points in the code, and didn't rely on decades old housing studies and town surveys, was made. The Engineer said that this feedback would have been useful in the last meeting, with the board rebutting that it wasn't their job to do the design work, but to evaluate the current design.

The Board then asked about why all the homes were clustered very near the High Capacity Powerlines... and that in their view, living very near/under Power Lines was "not desirable". The Engineer rebutted that this was a matter of interpretation - it may be viewed as "desirable" by some. She also stated that other areas of the property could not be developed upon because of wetlands.... and asked if the board was suggesting that the property was unbuildable. The Board wisely declined to answer that provacation.

The attorney for the developer, expressing his desire for collaboration in this effort and his gratefulness for the frankness of the board, asked if he could continue to work with Tri-Muni and be able to state that the application is currently open before the Town Planning Board. The Board responded that they were going to draft a letter, stating the points made at the meeting, to be reviewed in the next meeting, to the town board stating that the current plan is not appropriate for the site. The Town Planner then explained to the Town Attorney that it would be legitimate to explain to Tri-Muni that the application is open with the Town Board - who has responsiblity for deciding in a special use permit can be provided.

Application Extensions requested by the Kimmel Subdivision on Pine Ridge Drive and 157 River Road North for the replacement of commercial buidlings were granted.

The Board then discussed the current changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the desire to be more actively involved. The Town Supervisor, attending part of the Planning Board meeting, responded that they were welcome to attend the March 10 Town Board Meeting where some of the consultant's findings would be discussed. While helpful, this was clearly not the response the board was desiring, feeling like their experience and skills should be more fully leveraged in a specific presentation to them and discussion with the consultants. It is hoped that the valuable resource is more fully used during the comprehensive plan update process.