2025-152 (2)TOWN SUPERVISOR
JOSEPH D. CAVACCINI
August 12, 2025
Eoin Wrafter, AICP
Commissioner
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN SUPERVISOR
Dutchess County Government
Department of Planning & Development
85 Civic Center Plaza #107
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Dear Commissioner Wrafter:
TOWN HALL
20 MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590
W W W.TOWNOF WAPPINGERNY.GOV
(845) 297-4158 - Main
(845) 297-2744 - Direct
(845) 297-4558 —Fax
We are in receipt of your review of the Town of Wappinger's 2025 Comprehensive Plan Updates and
Zoning Amendments. Although we appreciate the time that was put into your review, I would like to raise
a number of concerns with you and the members of your team.
Overview of Review
As noted in the ACTION section of your review, the Town of Wappinger undertook the updates to the
2010 Comprehensive Plan and zoning code with the goal of improving the predictability of "permitted
housing densities" and to "align infrastructure capacity improvements to accommodate future growth."
To that end, we stand by the proposed 2025 Comprehensive Plan Updates and Zoning Amendments and
contend they will achieve the aforementioned goal.
The Town of Wappinger remains committed to providing a framework that allows for the development of
a variety of housing choices, retail opportunities, and employment choices, while continuing to safeguard
agricultural uses, the Town's natural environmental qualities, and our residents' quality of life. This
cannot occur with unplanned or haphazard growth, insufficient infrastructure capacities, and inequities in
how such infrastructure is funded. It is imperative that the true cost of future growth and infrastructure
investments not be disproportionately placed on the backs of current residents.
As noted in your review, the "complexity in the Town's zoning code appears to result from incremental
changes made over time without a comprehensive planning framework." The Town of Wappinger
disputes this, but does note that what you noted is exactly what these proposed changes will fix the
mismatched quilted pattern of codes. Currently, approximately 16.4 acres within the Town of Wappinger
are zoned as multifamily. However, with the incremental changes, as referenced above, including
Designed Residential Development, PUDs, Conservation Development, and other unclear provisions,
multifamily could occur on more than just the 16.4 acres that are mapped and zoned for such use. Not
only is this approach completely unpredictable, it is completely unsustainable. Not addressing such
unpredictable zoning provisions would be irresponsible. This is precisely why the Town is now putting
forth the updates as presented in its 2025 Comprehensive Plan Updates and Zoning Amendments.
Despite the well-intentioned goals that accompanied the incremental changes, unintended consequences
that were not apparent at the time, including a sharp increase in the allowance for multifamily and
commercial development in single family districts, must now be addressed.
Response to County Comments
We offer the following additional feedback to the County's review of the Town of Wappinger's proposed
2025 Comprehensive Plan Updates and Zoning Amendments. Items in bold denote the County's
comments, while the Town of Wappinger's responses are in italics.
1. Dutchess County's 2022 Housing Needs Assessment identifies a critical countywide need to
increase both the number and variety of housing types to address persistent challenges in
housing availability and affordability.
Dutchess County's 2022 Housing Needs Assessment was flawed in that the data provided specific
to Wappinger was incomplete and inaccurate.
Since the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the housing inventory/variety in the Town of Wapinger has
been greatly expanded, providing various housing types and affordability. The updated data is not
currently reflected in the 2010 Plan, necessitating the update.
In reviewing data provided by Dutchess County Real Property, the facts are overwhelmingly clear
that the Dutchess County Housing Study is based on flawed numbers by voluntary survey results.
The Town of Wappinger has 4,006 multifamily units.
2. The Town of Wappinger is well-positioned to contribute to this effort due to its water and
sewer infrastructure and its history of accommodating residential growth.
The Town is not well positioned with regard to the water and sewer infrastructure. Using the
County's ridiculous preferred census population count of 22,468, there are only 4,386 water
customers and 3,464 sewer customers. Any expansion of these systems should be made available
to facilitate the health, safety and welfare of current residents before expanding to
accommodate future growth.
A comprehensive understanding of the Town of Wappinger's sewer and water capacity for growth
is not known. This is partially due to the fact that PUDs, which lack specificity of uses, are
roadblocks to comprehensive sewer and water analysis. These floating zones that were part of the
"incremental changes made over time " allow for commercial uses including shopping facilities
within residential zones. A PUD creates dynamic change because once established, additional
lands that abut it can also be developed as a PUD. These could include very intensive sewer and
water users, making existing sewer and water capacity analysis nearly impossible.
3. The proposed Comprehensive Plan update and zoning amendments include a series of
changes that collectively reduce opportunities for multifamily housing, including the
elimination of allowances for converting large single-family homes into two- or multi -family
units.
The County fails to recognize that one of the primary purposes of zoning is to guide land
development and ensure it aligns with the community's long-range goals, protecting public
health, safety and welfare. Converting single family homes into two or multi family units is not
just a zoning issue but a matter ofpublic health, safety and welfare. Currently, this provision
allows conversion of up to six (6) units. A minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit is
required, with no maximum. Most developers would likely provide two spaces per unit, as it
would be easier to assign. At that ratio, the impervious surfaces for parking would be 2,400
square feet, not including circulation. This could have a tremendous negative effect on
stormwater runoff, heat island effect, and the overall quality of life for nearby residents.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan update and zoning amendments include a series of
changes that collectively reduce opportunities for multifamily housing, including the
elimination of Designed Residential Developments, which permit varied housing types.
This provision, §240-50, was previously repealed, with §240-19 (Conservation Subdivisions)
cited as an alternative. The existing 2010 Comprehensive Plan notes that Planned Unit
Development is complicated and should be changed to specify "water and sewer service
requirements necessary for site plan approval. " Both PUDs and Designed Residential
Development allow for commercial uses, creating uncertainty with regard to water and sewer
infi^astructure capacity.
The purpose of a "cluster development" is to provide an alternative method for the "layout,
configuration and design of lots, buildings and structures, roads, utilities lines and other
infi^astructure, parks, and landscaping in order to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of
open lands. " (Town Law § 278). Currently, the Town has no guidelines, conditions and/or
requirements to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open lands. In recognition of this, the
Town is proposing changes to its Conservation Development to address this.
5. The proposed Comprehensive Plan update and zoning amendments include a series of
changes that collectively reduce opportunities for multifamily housing, including confining
multifamily zoning to a few nearly built -out districts, with no new areas proposed.
Until the Town of Wappinger is able to complete a comprehensive sewer and water capacity
analysis, and has the time and funding to allow for a full Comprehensive Plan update, it is not in
a position to increase the areas where multifamily housing can occur. This is a more responsible
approach then the current one, which is to map and zone 16.4 acres for multifamily units, but in
reality, allow it on more than 8, 000 acres through PUDs, Cluster Developments, Designed
Residential Development, Conservation Development, or other provisions.
6. The proposed Comprehensive Plan update and zoning amendments include a series of
changes that collectively reduce opportunities for multifamily housing, including revising
definitions to classify townhomes as multifamily dwellings, further limiting where they can
be constructed.
The Town of Wappinger is not redefining multifamily dwelling. As noted in NYS Multiple
Dwelling Law:
A "inultiple dwelling" is a dwelling which is either rented, leased, let or hired out, to be occupied,
or is occupied as the residence or home of three or more families living independently of each
other (NYS Multiple Dwelling Law). Ownership of the units is not germane to the definition. A
town home that is part of a complex with several similar units, is classified as multifamily, even if
each unit is individually owned, as any individually owned unit, could be rented out.
7. As established in Berenson v. Town of New Castle and Land Master v. Town of
Montgomery, municipalities in New York have a responsibility to consider regional housing
needs when making land use decisions. Restricting multifamily housing in this way,
especially without a clear and consistent planning basis, undermines that responsibility and
may be viewed as exclusionary.
In 1975, the Court ofAppeals decided the case ofBerenson v. Town of New Castle which
broadened the concept of comprehensive plans to include an assessment of regional housing
needs. Although the case is often cited for its impact on so-called "exclusionary zoning"
practices, the decision actually extends the statutory mandate that zoning be in accordance with a
comprehensive plan. The court stated that its concern was not whether each zone was a balanced
entity, but instead whether the municipality itself was to be "a balanced and integrated
community. " The court then proceeded to lay down a test for this determination, the first branch
of which was that a "properly balanced and well -ordered plan for the community" had been
provided (citing Udell v. Haas, supra). It is the second branch of the test that expands the concept
of comprehensive plans, namely, whether a zoning law demonstrates that consideration is given
to regional needs and requirements. The "regional needs " portion of the Berenson decision has
not been expanded bevond consideration of regional housing needs, much less does it require
that a particular development project include low-income housing. Instead, the question is
whether the needs of both the community itself and the region have been accommodated
somewhere in the zoning law.
8. In addition to these broader concerns, the proposed update lacks the depth and internal
consistency expected of a meaningful plan revision.
The proposed update is thorough and has been the subject of numerous Town Board discussions
and presentations with public comment. The Town Board endeavored to limit the planning
process mainly to housing and infrastructure to allow the updates to be focused and involve a
greater depth than a broad plan update. The updates are consistent with the public dialog. A
public hearing allowing for public input will be held prior to adopting any additional future local
laws.
9. Internal Consistency. The proposed update directly contradicts the Town's 2010
Comprehensive Plan, particularly with regard to housing. That plan, supported by public
input and data analysis, identified a clear need to expand housing affordability and choice.
The proposed update to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan is not contradictory. In 2010 it "identified
a clear need to expand housing affordability and choice. " Since that time that goal has been
achieved. Comparing the 64% single family to 36% multifamily split in 2010 to the 62/38 split in
2023 is not reflective of the increase and variety of inventory.
10. Data Accuracy. Some population and housing figures appear to include data from the
Village of Wappingers Falls, which distorts the picture of conditions specific to the Town.
Obviously, the data has changed in 15 years. While the County cites that the Town's population
is "virtually unchanged" from 2010, the housing inventory and variety has substantially
increased since then.
Excluding the Village of Wappingers Falls from the `picture of conditions to the Town" only
distorts consideration for traffic generating characteristics, environmental impact, infrastructure
impacts, impacts on services such as fire, community/regional character, and community
facilities to name a few. j/ of this Village is within the Town of Wappinger. They pay taxes here,
receive Town services, and elect Town officials it is outright absurd that we would exclude them
fi^om this most important analysis that affects the entire Town.
11. Public Involvement. There is no documentation of recent community input, even though the
policies currently proposed contrast sharply with those in the 2010 Plan, which was built on
direct feedback from residents
Under NYS Town Law, a public hearing will be held, providing for community input and
feedback, prior to adopting the updated plan and zoning amendment. In addition, the
Comprehensive Plan Updates and Zoning Amendments were discussed during at least two Town
Board meetings, where public input was allowed and provided.
12. Infrastructure Capacity. The update suggests that infrastructure has not kept pace with
development but provides no supporting data for this claim.
The Town has had to increase police patrol and add ambulances. Our four volunteer fire
companies cannot withstand this significant strain on public emergency services.
The Wappingers Central School District (WCSD) budget passed with an expansion to both
Wappingers Falls Junior High and Van Wyck Junior High. The ever-increasing school budget
places a burden on the taxpayers, who live here now, and are on fixed income. More people
require more services, which means more taxes, not greater affordability. This comes following
our Superintendent of Schools who warned in April of 2022, that if this community continues
down this path of overdevelopment, we would see capital projects and steep tax increases such as
this.
In May, 2024, an Engineer's Report evaluating the United Wappinger Water District was
completed. Currently, the only new connections being considered are those required to remedy
an emergency situation. The existing UWWD source capacity safely accommodates average day
and peak day demand. Any excess capacity is intended to be reserved to mitigate emergency
situations. Petitions to connect to the UWWD via tenancy agreement will be granted where the
anticipated usage is determined to not have a significant impact on the needed and reserved
excess capacity.
13. Planning Approach. We agree that simplifying zoning is a worthwhile goal. However, much
of the complexity in the Town's zoning code appears to result from incremental changes
made over time without a comprehensive planning framework. The proposed Plan update
continues this pattern, introducing piecemeal alterations to the Comprehensive Plan to
support narrow changes to the zoning code. This approach risks exacerbating the confusion
and complexity that the Town seeks to address. A coordinated, complete update to the
Comprehensive Plan and then to the zoning code would offer a more effective and lasting
solution.
The complexity found in the Town's Zoning Code is partially due to a greater focus on regional
rather than local needs, not just incremental change. The changes over time are in response to
regional housing challenges, which have led to an overall complexity and unintended
consequences to the Town's Zoning Code. The proposed changes are meant to simplify the Code,
and guard against unintended, and adverse consequences.
In the County's response to the referral for the repeal of§240-50 it states: "We understand that
some terminology in §240-50 is outdated. However, instead of repealing this section entirely, the
Town Board should instead initiate a review and update of the process and definitions. "
The Court ofAppeals states: `A well -considered plan need not be contained in a single
document, indeed, it need not be written at all. The court may satisfy itself that the municipality
has a well -considered plan and that authorities are acting in the public interest to further it by
examining all available and relevant evidence of the municipality's land use policies. "
Examples of where courts have found evidence of comprehensive planning are zoning laws,
environmental reviews and findings, legislative findings relating to adoption of a law or
ordinance, minutes of the legislative body, studies and a previously adopted plan. The Town of
gppinger is meeting all these requirements.
The NYS Department of State 's Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan guide states: The
comprehensive plan invariably includes a thorough analysis of current data showing land
development trends and issues, community resources, and public needs for transportation,
recreation, and housing. Zoning is merely one method albeit an important one for
implementing the goals of the plan. Having a comprehensive or well -considered plan ensures that
forethought and planning precede zoning and zoning amendments.
The most important theme in the leading cases interpreting the requirement that zoning be in
accordance with a comprehensive plan is the language in those cases indicating that the courts
will look to see whether zoning is for the benefit of the whole municipality
This requirement does not, however, preclude future zoning amendments that "respond to
changed conditions in the community... ". The question is whether the change "conflict[s] with
the fundamental land use policies and development plans of the community... "
These proposed changes are a response to changing conditions, unforeseen circumstances, and a
desire to ensure that infi^astructure capacity and improvements can accommodate current uses
and future growth.
Conclusion
As noted in the proposed 2025 Comprehensive Plan Updates, the Town intends to undertake a full rewrite
of the Comprehensive Plan in the near future, as funds for such an endeavor are available. However, an
interim update to the Comprehensive Plan was completed, among other things, to ensure that
development does not occur at a rate that outpaces the Town's ability to upgrade is infrastructure to
accommodate such growth, and to ensure that land use regulations do not become so overly complicated
that there is no predictability or certainty to both current residents and future investors. The zoning
amendments that are being proposed are intended to fully address the issues outlined in the 2025
Comprehsnive Plan Update and ensure that the zoning ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Sincerely,
M
Joseph D. Cavaccini, Town Supervisor