Wayne Thompson LetterWayne Thompson
17 Hasbrouck Dr. t
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 "'- vF-
845-464-6693 AUG 2008
WayneThomnson5(a�aol.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Town of Wappinger Town Board
Town of Wappinger Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
August 11, 2008
Re: Strang Project Hardship Application
Old Rt. 9 and Old State Rd.
Dear Town Board Members,
This letter is submitted on behalf of the residents of 566, 568, and 570 Old State Road
with respect to the above referenced hardship application.
The letter submitted by the applicant fails to show unnecessary hardship as defined in
Section VII — A of Local Law I of the year 2008. The reasoning stated by the applicant for
exempting the project is flawed and counter to the stated law. Additional information provided in
the letter is inconsistent with Planning Board minutes and correspondence with other agencies. A
search of the record will show that rather than being close to approval in the planning process,
this project has a significant number of substantial issues that remain unaddressed by the
applicant. As will be detailed below, the issues presented do not rise to the level of unnecessary
hardship for purposes of this local law and the application should be denied.
Paragraphs 1 through 3 in the application incorrectly attempt to define the project as
exempt under the local law citing sections II F and G. These sections speak to commercial
development and residential development less than 5 lots. These sections are inapplicable to this
project. Section II A states that the law is intended to "...temporarily suspend Residential
Development as defined by Section IV herein..." Section IV C(c) defines Residential
Development to include an application for "a Site Development Plan for a Residential Use..."
Residential Use for the purposes of this local law is defined in Section IV B. Under Section IV B
1(h) a Mixed Use project is a Residential Use. Since the referenced application is a Mixed Use
project, the local law specifically applies to this project. Paragraphs 1 through 3 in the
application therefore incorrectly apply the law.
Paragraph 4 describes delays in the planning process caused by revisions to the site plan.
Whether initiated by the applicant or the planning board, such revisions are a normal part of the
planning process and do not amount to unnecessary hardship. Furthermore, the cost of
complying with town codes, regulations, and master plan are burdens borne by all applicants that
come for approvals from the planning board. Such costs are a matter solely for the applicant to
address. Compliance costs are not unnecessary hardship and are of no consideration for the
purposes of this local law.
Additionally in paragraph 4, the applicant refers to the March 2008 planning board
meeting and questions another delay. The official Planning Board minutes for March 17, 2008
quote Attorney Roberts as stating: "...I don't know why this was put on the agenda again since
there are a number of outstanding issues..." This statement by Attorney Roberts contradicts the
assertion by the applicant in Paragraph 5 where he states that the "...plans have been modified to
include all of the final comments by the Town Engineer, the Town Planner, and the DCHD." The
public hearing was indefinitely adjourned on March 17, 2008. As such, there may be additional
issues that arise during future public hearings which may necessitate further site plan changes to
comply with all applicable Town laws and outside agency regulations. These would be in
addition to the numerous current outstanding issues. Therefore, the moratorium would be a mere
delay in the approval process. The local law in Section VII A specifically excludes delay as an
unnecessary hardship and is therefore not a consideration under the local law.
The applicant has failed to meet his burden of showing unnecessary hardship. For the
above stated reasons the Town Board should not approve this hardship application.
ayne l'hom�sgh, for the residents above