1336 Route 9 LLC, vs. TOW & TOW Planning Board 2026SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
------------------------------------------------------------------ -x
1336 ROUTE 9 LLC,
Petitioner, Index No. 2026-51542
-against-
THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER and THE TOWN OF
WAPPINGER PLANNING BOARD,
Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------- -x
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLE 78 PETITION
Received
MAR 2 3 2026
Town of Wappinger
Town Clerk
BLEAKLEY PLATT & SCHMIDT, LLP
Attorneys for Petitioner
One North Lexington Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 9492700
A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY'STATEMENT.......................................................................1
STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................. 1
LEGAL STANDARDS.................................................................................................................. 1
ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 2
A. The Planning Board's determination that an additional fuel pump dispenser would
somehow increase site traffic and result in queueing conditions similar to the existing
conditions has no support in the record.............................................................................. 2
B. The Planning Board's requirement that all vehicles exit the gas station onto U.S. Route
9 was arbitrary and capricious given that the Board's own traffic consultant found that
drivers would ignore such a requirement............................................................................ 3
C. It was arbitrary and capricious for the Planning Board to deny Petitioner's application
based on crashes that had nothing to do with the gas station layout ................................... 5
D. The Planning Board's other grounds for denial were unfounded and/or incorrect ............. 6
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 7
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Apache Assocs. v. Plan. Bd of Vill. of Nyack
131 A.D.2d 666 (2d Dep't 1987)........................................................................................ 2, 5, 6
Buenos Hill, Inc. v. City of Saratoga Springs
175 N.Y.S.3d 467 (Saratoga Cnty. Sup. Ct. 2022).....................................................................
4
E. New York Props., Inc. v. Cavaliere
142 A.D.2d 644 (2d Dep't 1988)................................................................................
2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Gerber v. Town of Clarkstown
356 N.Y.S.2d 926 (Rockland Cnty. Sup. Ct. 1974)....................................................................
4
Indep, Wireless One Corp. v. Town of Maryland Plan. Bd.
738 N.Y.S.2d 829 (Otsego Cnty. Sup. Ct. 2002)........................................................................
4
Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v, Vill. of Airmont Plan. Bd.
145 A.D.3d 729 (2d Dep't 2016)............................................................................................
1,3
SCI Funeral Servs. of New York, Inc. v. Plan. Bd of Town of Babylon
277 A.D.2d 319 (2d Dep't 2000)................................................................................................
3
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner 1336 Route 9 LLC ("Petitioner") brings this Article 78 action to challenge the
denial, by the Town of Wappinger Planning Board ("the Board"), of its application for an amended
site plan approval. Petitioner sought merely to add an additional fuel pump dispenser to the two
existing dispensers at a local gas station and reconfigure the station's internal layout accordingly.
The application was supported by plans drafted by a licensed professional engineer in consultation
with a traffic expert. It was uncontested that the additional fuel pump dispenser will help address
unmet demand at the gas station, where long lines of cars waiting for the two existing fuel pump
dispensers are common.
The Board nevertheless denied Petitioner's application. As set forth in greater detail below,
it did so for reasons that are internally contradictory and wholly unsupported by the record.
Accordingly, the Court should find that the Board's determination had no rational basis and was
arbitrary and capricious.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The relevant facts are set forth in the accompanying Verified Petition, the exhibits attached
thereto, and the annexed affirmation of Petitioner's traffic consultant Lee Klein, all of which are
incorporated herein by reference.
LEGALSTANDARDS
"A local planning board has broad discretion in reaching its determination ... and judicial
review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an
abuse of discretion. A planning board's determination should be sustained upon judicial review if
it was not illegal, has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary and capricious." Ramapo Pinnacle
Props., LLC v. Vill. of,4irmont Plan. Bd., 145 A.D.3d 729, 730 (2d Dep't 2016).
1
However, a planning board's determination should be overturned if "the record lacks
sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board's determinations." Id. Moreover, "[a]
denial must be premised on clear findings of deleterious changes that adversely affect the adjoining
area[.]" E. New York Props., Inc. v. Cavaliere, 142 A.D.2d 644, 646 (2d Dep't 1988); see also
Apache Assocs. v. Plan. Bd of Vill. of Nyack, 131 A.D.2d 666, 666 (2d Dep't 1987) ("a planning
board may not base its determination respecting an application for site plan approval solely upon
its view of what is beneficial for the public health, safety and general welfare").
ARGUMENT
A. The Planning Board's determination that an additional fuel pump dispenser would
somehow increase site traffic and result in queueing conditions similar to the existing
conditions has no support in the record.
As set forth in the Planning Board's final determination, field observations of the gas
station "documented queues up to five vehicles, backing almost to U.S. Route 9 ... and some
vehicles leaving due to excessive wait times, indicative of unmet demand at existing conditions."
(Ex. D to Verified Petition, at 3.) The Board's traffic consultant thus concluded, quite logically,
that "additional fueling positions may reduce individual wait times." (Id.) The Board's traffic
consultant also opined, however, that the additional fueling position would somehow "increase
site traffic" and "would likely result in queuing conditions similar to existing conditions." (Id. )
The Planning Board based its denial largely on this inherently contradictory opinion.
There is simply no support in the record for the Board's determination. Petitioner's own
traffic consultant stated—without contravention—that the amount of site traffic at gas stations is
a function of the amount of traffic on the adjoining roads.' In other words, the gas station at issue
would only see an "increase in site traffic" if there were to be an increase in the number of cars
1 In addition to presenting this information to the Board during the application process, Petitioner's
traffic consultant has submitted a sworn affirmation reflecting the same information together herewith.
2
travelling along U, S. Route 9 or Old Hopewell Road in this area. Nothing in the record suggests
that this will occur.' Cf. SCI Funeral Servs. of New York, Inc. v. Plan. Bd. of Town of Babylon,
277 A.D.2d 319, 320 (2d Dep't 2000) (annulling denial of site plan application where applicant
demonstrated that it would operate "in a safe and efficient manner without significant traffic
problems"),
Adding an additional fueling position capable of servicing two cars at once would
necessarily reduce wait times at the gas station, resulting in shorter lines ------the very outcome
supposedly sought by the Planning Board. For the Board to find that additional fueling positions
would instead result in increased "site traffic" and/or unchanged "queuing conditions" was
arbitrary and capricious as it was unsupported by the record. See.Ramapo Pinnacle Props., 145
A.D.3d at 730; see also E. New York Props., 142 A.D.2d at 646 (noting that petitioner's traffic
expert "was not refuted or controverted by anyone at the public meeting or by the planning board's
professional planning consultant")
B. The Planning Board's requirement that all vehicles exit the gas station onto U.S.
Route 9 was arbitrary and capricious given that the Board's own traffic consultant
found that drivers would ignore such a requirement.
It is undisputed that the Board's traffic consultant recommended "requiring all exit
movements via the northerly driveway to U.S. Route 9," and that Petitioner did not "incorporate[]
these operational changes" into its proposed site plan amendment. (Ex. D to Verified Petition, at
3.) As an initial matter, there were legitimate reasons for this decision—the configuration of the
convenience store parking made it impracticable, and the Dutchess County Department of Public
2 The PIanning Board may have implicitly concluded that an extra fuel pump dispenser at the gas
station would act as a "draw," i.e., that more cars would stop at the gas station once they realized it had
three fuel pump dispensers instead of two. But if this was indeed the Board's rationale, it was not set forth
in the January 21, 2026 denial resolution, and therc was nothing in the record supporting such a conclusion.
3
Works would not allow removal of the channelization at the Old Hopewell Road driveway. (See
Affirmation of Lee D. Klein, at 2-3.)
Regardless, a site plan applicant is not required to adopt every recommendation made by
a municipal planning board any more than is the municipality itself.3 See, e.g., Buenos Hill, Inc.
v. City of Saratoga Springs, 175 N.Y.S.3d 467 (Saratoga Cnty. Sup. Ct. 2022), aff'd, 223 A.D.3d
1030 (App. Div. 2024); Indep. Wireless One Corp. v. Town of Maryland Plan. Bd., 738 N.Y.S.2d
829, 833 (Otsego Cnty. Sup. Ct. 2002); see also Gerber v. Town of Clarkstown, 356 N.Y.S.2d 926,
928 (Rockland Cnty. Sup. Ct. 1974) ("this Court cannot and will not direct that the defendants
follow the recommendations of [the County Planning] Board"). This is especially so where, as
here, the Planning Board's traffic consultant had already concluded that adopting his
recommendation would have little practical effect. In his August 14, 2025 letter to the Board, the
Board's traffic consultant specifically noted that even if Petitioner adopted his recommendation to
require exiting from the gas station onto U.S. Route 9, "drivers will likely not be familiar with the
restrictions and still try to navigate back to Old Hopewell Road." (Ex. C to Verified Petition, at
2 (emphasis added).) The danger this would pose is self-evident.
In any event, it is well established that denial of a site plan application "must be premised
on clear findings of deleterious changes that adversely affect the adjoining area[.]" E. New York
Props., Inc., 142 A.D.2d at 646. Petitioner's application would not have effectuated any "changes"
regarding the gas station exit; cars may currently exit onto either U.S. Route 9 or Old Hopewell
Road and would continue to do so under the amended site plan. Stated differently, there were no
3 It is worth noting that Petitioner adopted most of the Board's other recommendations and
submitted multiple changes to the underlying application over the course of several months to comply with
comments from the Board and its consultants. Cf. Bongiorno v. Plan. Bd of Inc. VUL of Bellport, 143
A.D.2d 967, 968 (2d Dep't 1988) noting that "planning board consistently withheld approval" despite
petitioner's "repeated and costly concessions."
M
"clear findings" that Petitioner's proposed changes would have somehow made the gas station's
layout worse, and it was arbitrary and capricious to deny the proposal on such a basis. Id.; see also
Apache Assocs., 131 A.D.2d at 666.
C. It was arbitrary and capricious for the Planning Board to deny Petitioner's
application based on crashes that had nothing to do with the gas station layout.
The Board's denial was based in part on its finding that there were "eleven crashes between
January 1, 2022 and February 28, 2025 at or near the Site ... underscoring existing safety concerns
that must be addressed in any expansion." (Ex. D to Verified Petition, at 3.) But Petitioner's
traffic consultant reviewed the crash reports in detail and learned that one was actually a duplicate.
Moreover, as he informed the Board, two of the ten crashes "involved rear end crashes ... and did
not involve traffic entering or exiting the gas station, while "[t]wo other crashes involved single
vehicles losing control, which [similarly] did not involve vehicles accessing the gas station." (See
Affirmation of Lee D. Klein, at 3.) Indeed, Petitioner's traffic consultant found that "none of the
crashes were related to the design of the access driveways on Route 9 (which was the focus on the
Planning Board's traffic consultant)." (Id. )
It is undisputed that there have been six crashes that "involved two vehicles maneuvering
within the site." (Id.) However, as Petitioner's traffic consultant explained to the Board, "[t]he
proposed new diagonal layout of the gas pumps will help prevent crashes of that nature by limiting
the need for vehicles to reverse from a fueling position." (Id.) There was no contrary evidence in
the record; the Planning Board simply ignored this information, which is grounds to overturn the
challenged determination. See E. New York Props., 142 A.D.2d at 646.
E
D. The Planning Board's other grounds for denial were unfounded and/or incorrect.
The Planning Board denied Petitioner's application based in part on input from the
Dutchess County Department of Public Words, which advised that the fuel delivery truck turning
plan "would block both lanes on County Route 28 [Old Hopewell Road] if entering the intersection
on red[.]" (Ex. D to Verified Petition, at 3.) But there was no basis to conclude that a fuel delivery
truck would ever break the law by "entering the intersection on red." More importantly, it was
undisputed that "the fuel delivery truck has accessed the subject property at least once a day for
the past ten years without any reported crashes." (Affirmation of Lee D. Klein, at 3.) In other
words, although it sounded facially in "public safety," this aspect of the Planning Board's denial
was in fact based on a purely hypothetical scenario and had no actual basis in the record. See
Apache 4ssocs., 131 A.D.2d at 666; see also E. New York Props., 142 A.D.2d at 646 (rejecting
planning board's contention as "conclusory")
The Planning Board also based its denial in part on the fact that Petitioner had not yet
obtained permits to commence work from the New York State Department of Transportation or
the Dutchess County Department of Public Works. (Ex. D to Verified Petition, at 4-5.) But such
permits are typically obtained after an applicant obtains site plan approval from the local
municipality, not before. There was simply no reason to seek work permits until and unless the
Planning Board allowed Petitioner to move forward with an amended site plan, and it was arbitrary
and capricious to, in effect, penalize Petitioner for proceeding in the way it did.
Finally, the Planning Board based its denial in part on a finding that Petitioner's "lighting
submission lacks a complete photometric plan[.]" This was simply incorrect; Petitioner provided
a photometric plan as part of its updated submissions to the Planning Board dated June 23, 2025.
(See generally Ex. B to Verified Petition.)
6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully submits that this Article 78 petition
should be granted in its entirety,
Dated: White Plains, New York
March 20, 2026
BLEAKLEY PLATT & SCHMIDT, LLP
One North Lexington Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 949-2700
Attorneys for Petitioner
by: Isl David A Chm
David H. Chen, Esq.
dchen@bpslaw.com
Lino Sciarretta, Esq.
lscirretta@bpslaw.com
7
PRINTING SPECIFICATION STATEMENT
1 hereby certify that according to CPLR 2101 and Section 202.5(a) of the Uniform Civil
Rules for the Supreme Court that the foregoing Memorandum of Law in Support of Verified
Petition was prepared on a computer with a proportionally spaced typeface.
Name of typeface: Times New Roman
Point size: 12
Line spacing: Double
The total number of words in this memorandum, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and
exclusive of the cover page, table of contents, table of authorities, and this printing specifications
statement is 1997 as determined by the word count feature of Microsoft Word.
Dated: White Plains, New York
March 20, 2026
8
IslOavid X. e&a
iQ Received
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF Dutchess MAR 2 3 2026
......... ------------------ ,...------------------------.............-x
1336 Route 9 LLC Town of Wappinger
Town Clerk
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
- against - Index No.2026-51542
The Town of Wappinger and the Town of Wappinger
Planning Board
Defendant/Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------- -x
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
(Mandatory Case)
(Uniform Rule § 202.5 -bb)
You have received this Notice because:
1) The Plaintiff/Petitioner, whose name is listed above, has filed this case using the
New York State Courts E -filing system ("NYSCEF"), and
2) You are a Defendant/Respondent (a party) in this case.
• If you are represented by an attorney:
Give this Notice to your attorney. (Attorneys: see "Information for Attorneys" pg. 2).
• If you are not represented by an attorney:
You will be served with all documents in paper and you must serve and file your
documents in paper, unless you choose to participate in e -filing.
If you choose to participate in e -filing, you must have access to a computer and a
scanner or other device to convert documents into electronic format, a connection
to the Internet, and an e-mail address to receive service of documents.
The benefits of participating in e -filing include:
• serving and filing your documents electronically
• free access to view and print your a -filed documents
• limiting your number of trips to the courthouse
• paying any court fees on-line (credit card needed)
To register for e -filing or for more information about how e -filing works:
• visit: www.nycourts.govlefile-unrepresented or
• contact the Clerk's Office or Help Center at the court where the case was filed. Court
contact information can be found at www.nycourts.gov _
Page 1 of 2 616118 EFM-1
To find legal information to help you represent yourself visit www.nycourthelp.gov
Information for Attorneys
(E -filing is Mandatory for Attorneys)
An attorney representing a party who is served with this notice must either:
1) immediately record his or her representation within the a -filed matter on the
NYSCEF site www.nycourts.gov/efile; or
2) file the Notice of Opt -Out form with the clerk of the court where this action is
pending and serve on all parties. Exemptions from mandatory e -filing are limited to
attorneys who certify in good faith that they lack the computer hardware and/or
scanner and/or internet connection or that they lack (along with all employees subject
to their direction) the knowledge to operate such equipment. [Section 202.5-bb(e)]
For additional information about electronic filing and to create a NYSCEF account, visit the
NYSCEF website at www.nycourts.gov/efile or contact the NYSCEF Resource Center
(phone: 646-386-3033; e-mail: nysceMnvcourts.aov).
Dated: March 20, 2026
David H. Chen
Name
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP
Firm Name
To: Town of Wappinger
20 Middlebush Rd
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
1 North Lexington Ave.
Address
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 949-2700
Phone
dchen@bpslaw.com
E -Mail
Index # Page 2 of 2 616118 EFM-1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
----------------------------------_---------------------------------x
1336 ROUTE 9 LLC,
Petitioner,
-against-
THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER and THE TOWN OF
WAPPINGER PLANNING BOARD,
Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No. 2026-51542
NOTICE OF
PETITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Verified Petition, the exhibits
annexed thereto, and the Memorandum of Law in support of same, an application will be made at
9:30 a.m. on the 27th day of April, 2026, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, at the
Dutchess County Supreme Court located at 10 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, to a
Justice of the Supreme Court to be assigned, for a judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice
Law and Rules vacating and annulling the final determination of the Town of Wappinger Planning
Board adopted on January 21, 2026 and filed with the Village Clerk on February 19, 2026, which
denied the Petitioner's application for an amended site plan approval. Petitioner additionally seeks
a judgment and order directing the Planning Board to issue the amended site plan approval,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to CPLR 7804 (c) and (e), a copy of
the certified record, an answer and any supporting affidavits shall be served on the undersigned
attorneys for Petitioner no later than five (5) days before the return date of the Verified Petition
Dated: White Plains, New York BLEAKLEY PLATT & SCHMIDT, LLP
March 20, 2026 One North Lexington Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 949-2700
Attorneys for Petitioner
by: lsl bawd X Ma
David H. Chen, Esq.
dchen@bpslaw.com
Lino Sciarretta, Esq.
lscirretta@bpslaw.com
X19 T E) w m
-t
a 0 9r
0
1
A
N D
E
w
E)
w
w
a �
8 th 6 h fir 6
b'
8 0
tv w a
0
2026-51542
1
W sa#
N D
A oLk
8 6 h R f)
d
a ji
4
a �
8 th 6 h fir 6
2026-51542
1
W sa#
A oLk
8 6 h R f)
d
a ji
4
a �
8 th 6 h fir 6
b'
8 0
tv w a
iy 6iry
F n Y a
2
if
b a di k
3
Rs
ath 0
Pi 0
d El b kv 6
N
It
a
d8
Rd
2d F
4
% it 6
AV
s a in
d
h kv 6
N w 8
1 6 h s 0
kv
F v
I
5. Respondent the Town of Wappinger Planning Board (the *Planning Board") is the
duly constituted plarming board for the Town, consisting of seven members appointed by the Town
Bo=t At all relevant times the Planning Board was chaired by Bruce Flower.
JUMSDICTION AND VENUE
& The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this special proceeding under Article 78
of the CPLR. It may exercise pevsonal jurisdiction over Respondents because they are municipal
entities located within Dutche-ss County.
7. Venue for this action is proper in Dutchess County under CPLR §§ 506(b) and
7804(b) as that is where Respondents' principal place of business is located and where the
complained -of Planning Board determh1ation wasn-tade.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
S. Petitioner owns the real property located at 1.336 Route 9 in Wappingers Falls, New
York, which is identified as Tax Lot 6157-02-614569 (hereafter "the Property"). The Property
comprises approxinuatelt' 0.68 acres in the Town's Highway Business (HB) zoning district.
9. . The Property hosts a gas station and convenience store which are situated at the
northeast corner of the intersection between 'U.S. Route 9 and Old Hopewell Road.
10, Currently there are just two gas pump dispensers at the gas station.
11. Via the underlying amended site development plan application, designated No. 25-
3507 by the Planning Board, Petitioner sought to relocate the two existing gas pump dispensers,
add oac additional one, add a caiiopy over the dispensers, and reconfigure the station's curbs mid
traffic signage, (See general4y Exhibit A.) Petitioner's application was accompartied by plans
drafted by a licensed professional engineer in consultation with a traffic expert who analyzed the
flow of vehicles in and out of the gas station.
W
11 On or about May 20, 2025, Petitioner submitted updated plans that addressed
con-n-i-ients received from the Planning Board at the Board's May 5, 2025 meeting. These updated
plans addressed traffic flow and maneuvering, parking, landscaping, said the design of the canopy.
13. On or about June 23, 2025, P(,-titioner again revised its plans, to address additional
comments received at the Plamiing Board's June 16, 2025 meeting. (See generally Exhibit B.)
14. The Planning Board's consultant, Hardesty & Hanover, noted that Petitioner's
application was considered a Type 11 Action and required no further action with respect to SEQRA.
15. On or about August 14, 2025, the Town's tTaffic consultant wrote to the Planning
Board to recorDniend that Petitioner require vehicles "to exit via the northerly driveway to Uu S.
Route 9." (See generally Exhibit C.) The'rown's traffic consultant noted that even if Petitioner
did so, however, drivers -will likely not be familiar with the restrictions and [will] still try to
navigate back to Old Hopewell Road." The Town's traffic consultant also requested "crash data
at the existing driveways for the latest three-year period," which Petitioner provided,
16. At the October 6,2025 Planning Board ineeting, Petitioner's own traffic consultant
noted that most of the crashes that had occurred at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and Old
Hopewell Road did not actually involve the gas station. He flarthet noted that driver error and not
the gas station's design, was responsible for the three crashes that involved vehicles turning into
the gas station. petitioner's traffic consultant further noted that the proposed new diagonal
configuration of the gas purnp dispensers would reduce the likelihood of oollisions on site, all of
which had been caused by vehicles backing away frown the pumps or from the adjacent
Convenience storax.
17, The Planning Board did not take issue with Petitioner's crash analysis.
Nevertheless, at the conclusion of Petitioners, October 6, 2025 presentation, the Maiming Board's
chairman stated that the entire Board had an "uncomfortable feeling" amort "the traffic flow," and
advised Petitioner lo revise its application yet again.. When Petitioner declined to do so, the
Planning Board scheduled a public hearing on. the underlying application, which was held on.
November 3, 2025, No members of the public spoke at the hearing.
18. At the Planning Board's Novernber 3, 2025 meeting, its chairrftaii opined that
adding an additional gas pump dispenser would "increase the traffic on thu Property," even though
Petitioner's evidence had demonstrated that the additional dispenser would sirnply meet existing
demand and accordingly reduce queuing and wait times for the gas pumps. Planning Board
members also expressed concern about fuel delivery trucks backing out of the gas station, even
though this had never caused any accidents.
19. When Petitioner declined to revise its application again, the Planning, Board
cbein.'riati. told petitioner that its site plan application would be denied,
20. At its January 21, 2026 meeting, the Planiting Board vowd, without further debate
or discussion, to adopt a pre -written resolution denyi-ug Petitioner's site plan application.
21. The denial resolution (see generally Exhibit D) stated, infer alia:
* "that while additional fueling positions may reduce individual wait times, they
would also increase site traffic and, given the proposed pump orientation and
on-site circulation, would fikely result in queueing conditions similar to existing
conditions;"
* that the Planning Board had recommended "requiring all exit movements via
the northerly driveway to U.S. Route 9." and
* that "[c]rash. data -from NY DOT CLEAR confirms eleven ermlies between
January 1, 2022 and FebruW: 28, 2025 at or near the Site."
The resolution further stated that Petitioner's application "fails to mitigate documented queuing
that encroaches toward U.S. Route 9, and does not resolve conflict points exacerbated by the
proposed fueling position orientation and increased site traffic identified by the Town's traffic
consultant .1" The denial resolution was filed with the Town Clerk on February 19, 2026.
M
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21 Petitioner repeats all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
23, The challenged determination of the Planning Board is contrary to law, lacks a
rational basis, constitutes an abuse of discretion and is arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, the
.record does not disclose a sLifficient basis for the challenged determination.
24. For example, there is no evidence in the record that adding an additional fueling
position to the Property would "increase site ti-tdFic" as the Planning Board found. On the contraq,
the evidence demonstrated that "site traffic"is determined by the volume of traffle on the adjoining
roads and is not affected by the number of pumps at the gas station.
25. Similarly, fli.cre is no evidence in the record that "the proposed pump orientation
and on-site circulation[] would likely result in quetteing conditions similar to existing conditions."
Indeed, this finding was directly conti,adicted by the Planning Board's finding that "additional
fueling positions may reduce individual wait times," Logically, if "individual wait times- are
reduced, "queuing" is also reduced.
26. The Planning Board denied Petitioner's application in part beeauw Petitioner
declined to adopt the Board's recommendation to require "all exit movements via the northerly
driveway to U.S. Route 9:1 But the Planning Board's own traffic consultant had opined that even
if Mitioner adopted this reconin-tendation, drivers would "still by to navigate back to Old
Hopewell Road." It was arbitrary and capricious to penalize Petitioner for not adopting a
recommendation that, acoording to the Board's own expert, would not actually mitigate any traffic
issues at the gas station,
27. The Planning Board also based its denial on the fact that 'data from NYSDo,r
CLEAR confirms eleven crashes between January 1, 2022 and. February 28, 2025 at or near the
5
Site." But Petitioner demonstrated that most of these crashes occurred at the intersection of US.
Route 9 and Old Hopewell Road, not tit the gas station. For the three crashes that involved vehicles
turning into the gas station, Petitioner demonstrated that the cause was driver error, not the gas
station's design. It was arbitrary and capricious to deny Petitioner's application for reasons that
had nothing to do with the underlying site plan.
28, The Planning Board based its denial in part on the fact that Petitioner had not yet
obtained permitsto co Bence work from NYSDOTor Dutchess County DPW. This was arbitrary
and capTieious insofar as such permits are typically obtained after an applicant obtains site plan
approval frons the local municipality, not before.
29, flic Planning Board also based its denial in part on a finding that Petitioner's
"lighting submission lacks a complete photometric plan[.]" But Petitioner in fact provided a
complete photometric plan as part of its updated submissions dated June 23, 2025.
WEERE FORE, Petitioner respectfully requests a judgment and order:
(1) vacating and annulling the final determination of the Planning Board, adopted via
resolution dated January 21, 2026 and filed with the Town Clerk. on February 19, 2026, which
denied Petitioner's amended site development plan application;
(2) granting the amended site development plan; and
(3) awarding Petitioner the costs and expenses incurred in the instant action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, together with such ffirther relief as this Cotwt deems just and proper.
Dated: Wbite Plains, New York
March 20, 2026
BLEAKLEY PLATT' & ScilMIDT, LLP
One North Lexington Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 949-2700
A ltorneyspr Petitioner
by- WjQatadX
David H. Chen, Esq.
dchenoo bpslaw.com
Lino Sciarrem, Esq.
Iscirretta&pslaw,corn
6
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
).-SS
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS )
Mark Dombal, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I ani the business development officer for the petitioner hi the above-captiomd matter. f
have read the foregoing petition and I know the contents thereof to be true of my own knowled go,
except those niatters stated on irtrormation and belief, and as to those matters, I believe thern to be
ffm
Sworn before me this lk
day of March, 2026
Notary Ptiblie
7
D 19
8 Ea 9c
I1 i N
K
E
w
D IF d
H 01N E)
N 0
D
w
@IN 11
6
L DK
h§
h fo gT
d
b
y p
1
Iat b �o b
K Thi
€iu
h4
f b N
Y k
d a hT i I y
C R
ikh
T fiic
a
F
0
u It' u
Ph
it x firl
g
b
u Ili agi
p h
i ik V S
2
Iw rhd h
0I a
h hid
e
b k Whi
b t
b iFw f
9
0
c
dm b
h
foh
im
I d $8 R 9i
> Ig
Ft W
Yk.
3
ppE;dth
i t!pI
mai
yck
onfai
nmpsgi
i d h e
wf
li mpt a i
4� g for
fu i
g►
4
If R n g 8
da h
ba
tLi I
5
1 vi dr h a biln
i ngh F
h i d
a Eb
D t
b huip g � I p d
b h
Foiv g
b
W R n g 9
ffi
ut n
d
h t bli
Eug
p b
t i
,ik a s i ter
5 A
I i n da
b P g
0 it
h
opinion, site generated traffic of a gas station is determined by the volume of traffic on the adjacent
roads. During peak periods of travel, a gas station with convenience store draws most of its
customers from the stream of traffic that is already on the adjacent roadway traveling between
other destinations such as home to work or school or shopping. This is called pass -by traffic.
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Handbook, 31
Edition, September 2017, a national industry guide for all traff=ic engineers, the pass -by percentage
of vehicles entering a gas station with convenience store is 63 percent during the weekday AM
peak period and 66 percent during the weekday PM peak traffic periods.
7. The Planning Board's traffic consultant also concluded that the additional fueling
pump station "would likely result in queuing conditions similar to existing conditions." In my
professional opinion, the additional fueling pump station (two fueling positions) will increase the
capacity of the gas station, which will address the unmet demand, the potential increase in traffic
volumes entering the site, and in turn result in less queuing within the gas station. The current fuel
pump positions allow 4 vehicles to dispense fuel while only 2 vehicles can wait for an available
fueling position.. The reconfiguration of the fuel pumps and the increase in fueling positions will
allow 6 vehicles to dispense fuel simultaneously, will allow up to 6 vehicles to wait for an available
fueling position, which will address the unmet demand, reducing the potential for vehicles to leave
without fueling. Based on my field observations as well as the field observations of the .Board's
expert, the demand for fuel is already there. The improvements will address the unmet demand.
8. The Planning Board's traffic consultant recommended "restricting Old Hopewell
Road access to right -turn entering only and requiring all exit movements via the northerly
driveway to U.S. Route 9." However, this was impracticable due to the configuration of the
convenience store parking, which would facilitate a convenience store customer to exit via a right
2
turn: onto Old ;Hopewell Read. Dutchess County will not allow removal of the channelization at
the Old Hopewell Road driveway.
9. The Planning Board noted that there were"eleven crashes Between January i, 2022
and February 28, 202`5 at or rear the Site." 1 reviewed: all eloven crash reports. and learried that
one was u duplicate, Two involved rear end. crashes (cine on Old .Hopewell. Rd and one on Route
9, mthhound In the left tum lane) and did: not involve traffic entering or exiting the gas station,
Two other crashea involved ,single vehicles losing control, which did not involve vehicles
accessing the gas station. Six of the crashes involved two vehiclos maneuvering within t1le site..
The proposed new diagonal layout of the gas pumps will help prevent crashes of that nature by
limiting the need for vehicles to reverse from a fueling position. In my professional opinion, gone
of the crashes were related to the design of the access driveways on Route 9 (which was the focus
on the Planning: Board's traffic consultant),
10. Finally, the Planning Board expressed concern. about the exiting ofthe fluel delivery
true from the gas station. This concern was unfounded-, the fuel delivery truck has aceessed the
sul:jject property at least. once a day for the past ten years witli ut any reported crashes.
Sworn before nee this ft
day of March, 2026
Lary Pulalze
JESSIOA A STEINFELR
Notary Public of New Jersey
COMMISSION NO. 2362258
COM.MISS1014 EXPIRES 0,91;ZWi47
3
TOWN OF WAPPINGER PLANNNNG BOARD Application INO.
Date Received:
Fee Meiv d:
Escrow Received:
APPLICATION FOR SITE i' ,AN S'I'T° VAL
TITLE OF PROJECT. 1 o l i t
L.o adon of'Property � 6 ��+xf�� Ct,
NAME &:. ADDRESS OF APPLICANT (Corporation or fndividuai):
Z 6%; e c PLA),d I re C r
s3%
Street Town Stag Zip
Conract person _ �Phona i�iurnbcr .._ Email m.
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER (Corporation or I tdi-idual):
334 Pw u
2-6 AnItZ, 1.,47,v (2�Ab A k tt
trot � �'0�4� m_�...�..��Statc: dip
Ih1 ....0 sf�' `0q
'o—niact person Phone Number
Grid No. 6 l- 7 - Q 2, ... 6 l4(,5"6 q
�'l��s�: �p��if; tsar Kir ua�s �rf`�tailt�ir�� at�d a���atrtit of`flpe�r area. de��teri t� encu:
Existia« Use: &A5 57A r,?o f (ON v4wlevc6 S' -OAP'
Proposed Use: C14f 9"A jjy �v
Existing Sq. Footage: Z Y'S UsM: c - 7,/,6®
Proposed Sq. footage: �_��� Use: c - Y F O_
Location of Property
Zoning District:
1134 �,'7P, q , fv��
M
AfttMpated No. ofErnplayees: drug P j.SH;W
Acreage: 47 1
Evitinz No- of Parkin=, SpaQe,�` , 15 _e..� PrEvosed No of Parking Spaces: t
1336 Rome 4 Ltd
Type Name (Corporation, LLC, Individua , etc.
dr'aj�
Date Oj w QLa S. t
t e' f(3na ure
repres
(OQS') 765" 95107 AIVX, AAEA46A
Owner's Telephone No, TName and `tilde pT
Owner's Address
***If this is a Corporation or LLC please provide documentation of
authority to sign,
Notee *The appliMaL is responsible for the cost invol%°cd in publishing the required lqgzal notice
in the local new5paper;
W S p%cial Use Pe nit for the above use has been applied for, pleas4. checkEl.
# Application Fees are noo-refundable.
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
PLANNING BOARD & ZONINGBOARD OF APPEALS
20 MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPPINGERS FAU$, NY 125K
PH: 645.297.6256
Fax: 845-297-0579
Dinner Consent For
Project ; Date:
Grip! Cho,: �! � "� � �� - � 1 �' � � `� Zoning District- f�
Location of Project -
133C Rowk q WAeM 14tX
Nam? of Ap li nt»
173 17OUTP, L4C n OV)1127. zVy
Print name and phone number
Desaription of
project: )ezcr;w4 ,4 6-oi loO1244opta
;Obi'�:��ai
tNTI-S �,Vxj FAVI % nr, Of S71'"
E -SPED 11,;A OIArvy
hereby give permission for the Town of Wa'
accordance with local and state codes and
ft�,i
Date
Owner's Telephone Number
Forint Name and Title ***
Idincg
ili ation in
*** if this is a Corporation or LLC, please provide doc-amentation of authority to sign.
If this is a subdivision application, please provide a copy of the deed.
61220
App eii (lix B
Short Eiii>ieottiitetit(flAss e-isinent Form
jutmfions for Completing
Part I - Project Information. 'Fite appucant or project Sponsor Is re,%pomlble for tho completion of Part I. Responses
lmome part of the application for approval or ikm6d g, are stibjeut to public review, aad may be Subject to further veriffoatim
Complete Pan I bawd on laformatim ourventlymilable. if Kddiflonal.rcsramh or investigation would be rweded to fully
rospond to any item, please answer as thoroughly tis passible based Go mnrmt informatiou.
Complete all itams in Part 1. You may also provide any additionni information which you believe will be needed by or w9eflil
to the lead aganoy; attach additional pagez as necessary to supplemont any item.
Part I - Project tuid Spomor Information
1336 go4if ILLC
rime of -Action or Projrot:
1334 gDart" q LLC
TrWJ,cotTQoation (describe, and attach a location map):
133 4 gog,7,g 9 , iA , P4 Y
Brief Desiniption of Proposod Aofiox Of#Vf 6XrAA' r4 e-N,4,AvP� CA,-,,#fv To 7M pq OP44
7s; aJ5 R,140 );?
A K e fy;/- )4w rA ,r
'86
00tA)
5
e7&ffT
Namo ofMplkant or Sponson elephono;
1334 9"'.rx N'te -
city/po.
61-- legiglative ado tion of as plarl, local law, Ordinance, NO YVS
as trativa rule, or ragulation?
If Mesa attach a narsdive dogc-dp4on of the intent of the proposed salon and Vie envirommW regoumu that
may be afrorw4 ift the municipality aild pi -owed to Patt. 2,
2, Does the proposad acloa reqdre a pormit, approval or fundiag ftm any other govern.moni'll Agonq?
.a. Total acmagc of tbo site, of the proposed action? CA 6r acres
b. Totalntefqe- to be phy,&ioafly diaturbod? 0:1 acres
a. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properdes) owned 0 4'71
or controlled by the applicant or proj"t spoimor? , ---acres
k 911 land ms that occur on, adjoining and near the pmpagod action.
B Urban DRwral(nonagiculture) [31ndmtrlaf MConummial EIResidential (suburban)
DFOrest DAgriculture L3Aquafio L3Dthor (speoify):
Mparklaild
M��
N
a. A pennitted oso tindcr the zoning regnlafious? �L]
YES.
z
N/A
11
b, Cons'Wnt with the adopted compreh.-osive plari? Er
......... .. .. ..
6. Is the propo3cdaolioa consistent with the predoninant character of gic existing built or nawral
landscape?
NO
ARS
11
7, Is the site of the proposed action located iii, or does it adjoin, to state listed Crikal Environmental Area?
If Yes, identify:
NO
YES
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial inorea-se in traffic above pra serit levels?
NO
YES
b, Am public trangpoilation service(s) available at or near the site of the proposed action'?
e, Are any pedestrian acconimodations or bicycle, routes available on or aupr site of the proposed action?
Tboes ilio -Proposed Rotiou muet or fmcced the, state euergy toderequirearzts?
If the proposed octicii will exceed requitomenf% describe, design feats es and technolo&3:
NO
YES
N0
YES
If No, dosorlbe method foT providiiig potable water: 44
I I Will t1115 proposed action connect to exiging was tawater Uttlitits? NO -YES
If No, describe method for providing wasiewater trey ment.- SOW- 5 V,-4^ 6107-1,V&
12, at. iio s ti sib contain -astnicture _&t is -listed on Register of Historic NO YESI
b, Is the proposed action ioa4tcd in on serisittvi; =0
13, a. Dom any portion of the site of the proposcd action, or lands adjoining the proposed aotion, contain NO YES
wetlands or Acr waterbodies reBulated by a fWaral, sftto or local figLmcy?
b. Would the proposed action, physiully alto, or mmaoh into, any existing wetlond or watcrbodY7 E 0
If Yes, idmiffy the, wottaad or watarbody and extent of afterations in star feet or steres.q
a7,
1d71-de-affy ffio'p-0iml habitat types that occurring or are likely to lie found on the project site, Check all that apply:
0 SLorobne Forest AgriculturWgrasslands Barty mid-suocegsional
Wedand Urbm Suburban
M Does the sho oftbo proposed action contaia &iy species of animal, or associated habitats, listed NO YE S
by the state or Fcderal govornmont as threatened or endangered?
_TK _in&
lst_h100 year flood plaia?
NO
YE 8
X
17. Will the proposed action create lorm. teat discharge, either from point or tion-polut sources?
If Yes,
a, Will s' touii water disci drgos flow to adjamt prop mfios? NO DYES
NO
YES
K Will storm water discharges be directed to �abfimhed conveyance systemsMinnoff and a
f YNO jrdrarns)?
Ies, briefly di=tlbo: IM
. ... . ... .. ..
Page 2 of 4
li
18. Does the proposed action includo contnicfi.r otoa r othz° activities dist Yeau tin the iinponsicaaient o
water or other Hquids (e,g, retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)?
If Yeg, oxplain purpose and siize: r-71
19, Iles Ell
yn
the site of the proposed actiau or, an adjoining property been the location OraCM n active or 1( d N
solid waste managemont facility?
if Yes, dosoribo:
M Hat; the site of the proposed action or to adjoining property been the s0ji�ct of reaqQdiation (ongoiag or NO YES
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes, desurl'be:
Z El
-iAFF1 R '17111's , INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO ME BEST OF illy
KNOWLE LED
Appliowitigpomor na ZOZ
Signature-
Part'.7 - InTatt Asstisment. Tlw, Lead Agency Is respoasiblo for the voulpletion of Part 1 Ausiver all of the fbilowing.
questions in Part 2 using the laformation contained in Part I and offier materials submitted by the projeat spowor or
o4herw3so available to the reviewer, lien aaworing the qimstiona ft reviewer should be guided by the waoept'Trvo any
responses been rmonWc cons, dering the scale znd context of thvpwposed action?"
L Will the proposed action GreaW awatedt)J conflict with or adapted land use plan orzowng
regulations?
2, Will
3. Will ffioproposod action impair tire. characwxorgala litycif the
4. 'Will the propmod k'~tion "RVO M" 'nPUCt 011 tho 0JJVjM=WJW obvuaotcrislics that Mused t�
estabRahment tufa Critical Enviromnontal Area (CM)?
S. WILU the proposed aCtio'll rQJJJLJt in Qn. adVeT8Q 011angg in title eXiSting level or. traffito 01'
affect eximthig infrastructure for miss firuiW4 biking or walkway?
6, Will the proposod action cause an irrrrease in the use ofenergy wid it fails to incorporate
Lamonably available enoc gy_n2nsoaatiort or renewable enorgy opporhuiifies?
7. Will the ptopmedact[on: irupactexigdag:
a, pubic / prim water sugpli%?
b. public /private waaWwater treatmeat utilities?
R. WM the propose d action impair the chawtor or quality of importmitWorio, twohaeologioal,
avehitectural or aosthotio rucerin 7
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverao climi.ge to natural resources (e g., wetlands,
watzrbodies, gromidwater, air qiiatfty, flan and fauna)?
Page 3 of 4
Impa P'T
Loplict
WAY
aveUr
may
00pur
El
El
C
-
11
El
li-�
C
11
P
41yt 3 - Ueterndnati(II) of �Jgjjjfjoqnea, The Load Agoncy Is respotisIblo for the c*raplefion of Part I For every
quadon in Part 2 that was stiswerod "moderate to largo impact may occue', or if there is need to mplain why a particular
element of tho proposud Wflon may Of Will not result in a significant adverse envireamontal impact, plisse complete Part 3,
Part 3 shotild, hi sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any meamtes or design elements that have beon included by
the, prqjt spot=r vo avaid or redvice impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agenoy detvnninGd that th� impact
BTA"Y or will not bo Signifimat, Ewh powitlil finpaot sboutd be assessed considering its settingg, probability of ocQurding,
duration, LT4-versibihty, geographic scope and magnitude. Also cornsider the potontial for short-temi, loilg-tella and
cumuhalvo impacts.
lieu% this box if cats nve -&Wnninod, -bawd on the idurm4on and analysis above, and any siipporting dwwwtadoyt,
thA, the proposed action may rogult in ono or 11jorc potentially largo or significant adverse impacts tnd aa
environnte,mal impact statement is req*ed.
Check, this box if yogi five dCerin hiod, based on the information and analysis abovo, imd any mpporting d"umontation,
that the proposed action will not result in any aignificar"t adverse ia111nwt&
Narao of Lcad Agency Date,
Print or Type Namo of Rcspoasiblo Officer in Lead Agency Title afRovons6le Ofter
Sl&ature of Responsible Offt"r in Lml Agoacy Sigaamro of Preparer (if differeat from Raspawlbh� Officer)
E�:P�RINT Page 4 oN
small
to large
inipact
Impact
may
Y
occur
occur
M Will the proposed action rtstdt in tm iiieremu in the powntial toy oro6ion, floo(bg or drainage
Ej
11
probtems?
IL Will tKe proposed action create a hazard to enviroill-gentil reso llvces or human heafth?
1 7
� 7
P
41yt 3 - Ueterndnati(II) of �Jgjjjfjoqnea, The Load Agoncy Is respotisIblo for the c*raplefion of Part I For every
quadon in Part 2 that was stiswerod "moderate to largo impact may occue', or if there is need to mplain why a particular
element of tho proposud Wflon may Of Will not result in a significant adverse envireamontal impact, plisse complete Part 3,
Part 3 shotild, hi sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any meamtes or design elements that have beon included by
the, prqjt spot=r vo avaid or redvice impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agenoy detvnninGd that th� impact
BTA"Y or will not bo Signifimat, Ewh powitlil finpaot sboutd be assessed considering its settingg, probability of ocQurding,
duration, LT4-versibihty, geographic scope and magnitude. Also cornsider the potontial for short-temi, loilg-tella and
cumuhalvo impacts.
lieu% this box if cats nve -&Wnninod, -bawd on the idurm4on and analysis above, and any siipporting dwwwtadoyt,
thA, the proposed action may rogult in ono or 11jorc potentially largo or significant adverse impacts tnd aa
environnte,mal impact statement is req*ed.
Check, this box if yogi five dCerin hiod, based on the information and analysis abovo, imd any mpporting d"umontation,
that the proposed action will not result in any aignificar"t adverse ia111nwt&
Narao of Lcad Agency Date,
Print or Type Namo of Rcspoasiblo Officer in Lead Agency Title afRovons6le Ofter
Sl&ature of Responsible Offt"r in Lml Agoacy Sigaamro of Preparer (if differeat from Raspawlbh� Officer)
E�:P�RINT Page 4 oN
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION
OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER
PLANNING BOARD l ZONING BOARD
R QUIREMla NT "OIC. ESCROW FTJNDS
SECTION 1. ESCROW FUNDS EST LIQI-JE I)
By the authority granted by Section 240-110 € f the'romr of Wappinger Toning Law and iti order" to erasure that the cost of any Engineering,
SEAR Experts, PlanAn , Legal or other consultation, fees incurred by the Town of talaprpinger with respect to natters Wore the Planning Board
l Zoning Board are borate by the applicants, there is hereby established an Escrow bund. Upon filing an application for either subdivision or
site plan, special perrttit approval, or Dor a. building p5erixiit err° certificate of oNnp5antry, the applicant shall deposit with the Towa Conta°ollw, via
certified check, ,sum of rtaoriey if) acoordance with the ttibN below. `l"lie Controller shrill pay from these funds the foes ebaarged dry any
professionals employed by the Planning Board with respect to the applicants parQiect. Said fees shall bu subm,itted by voucher and paid as
ap3proved by the Zonin Adriaitai wator. The applicant shall deposit additionxat fa nds into such account to bring its balance up to 100% of the
amount ofthe full eseTow deposit try the last day of each ruoirth. U such account is not firily replenished by the last day oftho vionth, the
approving agency sMI suspend its review of the application, lza �o c<�e of past�rrpproval i pertituas a reviews in�roivirag �iastntotiti� the
Town ruay issue a stops warp order. No sabdivislon plat or site evolo t t plan shall be endirrurd err fid d u uttl all prokgional. r"t.vi w
fees e.h r e o rrr c
fees this` a rr ` ire r t v cl. rr sett t iae' tc vit, irrrll l g ati l ba i aiii esu tr ` Its r t v r cl. rr sr tl t ire' rr var, hrr9i i g atr I ha i trn es
all amfesslnc • i.re i ee it ti ria ` v f ha a 1➢.cant's ro eel li ave bei re rad e t i d t
,new Us r . "di'd Lit : Ia tit iitn`. a ras e� tr tri ctrr , t •rtetio
ads aired tlriv vL s, No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued unless all professional roview fees obarged in connection with the paost�
approval inspeetion acrd review of the projen have been reirrabursed to the Town. No ref aids of any funds remaining on deposit in escrow shall
be issued until all perLblent pr€rfessiolral review charges have been paid wi.d the tnarl cerdf'cate of occupancy has been issued W the paroject, or
where applicable, the road leas been accepted by the Town acrd th.e one-year uminterratice period loris expired.
SECTION 2, CALCULATION OFi SCROW FUND
For SLU_DDIVISIQNS, the applicant shall deposit a sum calculated as follows:
A) Number of lots
Amount
0 - 2
5, 13.00
3-10
10,000m
I1-35
$22,500M
>35
$52,500,00
For SI`L`L PLANS & REGULAR SPECIAL USE PCWMITS, the applicant shall deposit a sure calculated
as follows:
B) ASuare F tam Amount
Up to 3,000 $ 5,000.00
3,001 to 20,000 %'10,000.00
20,001 to 50,000 $ 22,500.€0
> 50,000 52,500.10
For AffNOR _APPLICATIONS, the applicant s1u 1 deposit and maintain a sum calculated follows.
C) $2,500.00
For VAMANCES,the applicant shall deposit a sum deterrained by the Zon n .Board rrl`Appeals.
.
For RCS AD N x; EC I NS, the ap licatit shall deposit and maintaina sum oc1ual to 3% of the ons etiou
costs as sti t by hr" `I'"ovm Engineer.
240.112,A,(2) ADDHc:ation [Pefition Fee for Rezoning.
$1001.00
Administrative Reguladou
of the Town of %ppinger
Planning Board
Requirement for Escrow Funds
Page 2
For Post plaallia �.�the applicant shall deposit a sum calculated as follows prior to the Resolution
and Maps being signed by the Chairman of the Planning Board
Site Plans:
A) Number of lots
Amount
0-2
$5,000.00
3 -10
s I0,000.00
11-35
$16,875.00
> 35
$26,250.00
B) _S:�Uare �Footamye
Amount
Up to 3,000
$5,000.00
to 20,000
$10,000.00
20,001 to 50,000
$16,875M
> 50,000
$ 26,250M
SECTI ON 3. REVILIONS
This rcgtdation may be revised by the Planning Bo-ard of the Town of Wappinger
following a public he-aHng and approval by the Town Board.
Signed: Bruce Flower, Chairman
Town of Wappinger Planning Board
Dated: August 21, 2023
Town of Wappinger
Planning Board and Zoning Board of Nppeals
CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE
2023
PLANNING DEPT. FEF,
Subdivision Fees:
Subdivision Application Fee:
Recreation Fee-.
Lot Line, Realignment:
Lot Consolidation:
Site Plans:
Site Plan Application Fee:
Amended Site Plan
Application Fee -
Conceptual Fees.,
Architectural Fee,:
Architectural Fee:
Special Use Permit Fees:
$1500, plus $250 per lot.
For I - 9 lots, $5,000.00 per lot;
For 10 or more lots, the Planning
Board all determine whether to require
the reservation of land or payment of
$5,000.00 per lot.
$500 plus escrow
$500 plus escrow
$15 00, plus $250 per 1000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area of the building, plus $20.00 per
parking space.
$750, plus $250 per 1000 ft of floor area, plus
$X00 per parking space
$250.00 No escrow
$250 Minor — no escrow (Deteiamain ed. by ZA)
$250 Major - $2,000 escrow
Commercial Fee:
$750.00 per application
Accessory Apartment Fee: $750.00 per application.
ZONING DEPT. FEES
Variance Fee: (Resident) Area/Use Variance Fee: $375.00 per application.
(Commercial) Area/Use Variance Fee: $1,000.00 per apple
Interioretation Fee:
Residential $150.00 per application.
Commercial $500.00 plus escrow
All application fees are non-refundable.
Copy work: $.25 per page
Please note that all, applicants will belilled by the local newspaper for their legal
notice.
Escrow Funds. See attached schedule
Effective date: August 2023
9:1
1336 Route 9 Proposed Project:
Existing gas pumps to be removed and relocated, one extra pump and canopy to be
added. A portion of the concrete curb at the northerly egress will be removed and
relocated, and pave area. Existing yard light to be removed and relocated. The
northerty curb wilt be removed and re(ocated and area paved.
Traffic diversion to/from Old Hopewell Road removed. Propose to pave over
disturbed area, keep the directional signs, and paint new flow signals' ort the
pavement.
- Shed to be removed,
- Retocated entry doors from the right aide of the store front glass to the (eft side of
the storefront gtass,
0
I
`5
jp
n
�PF�� py�'uzw'"a3 pq
a7
t!
jH
(p i
gg6413•y1gg @RBipgg�yigg
r
k�
I
`5
n
r
k�
C) L,
.
a m
jJ
r
dei:
°
$"
LIts��
kFl
'r
" Al1-
-
�, ,N3'ffyy.t. � �Q1g•��� �Q
. �r38(P174G,
O A
9
RAM
�
a
E
fo
0,11 k A g
gg pp �
€��.utt°RonRil
�k+kw�am.ar,
q
n
RAM
�
a
E
fo
0,11 k A g
gg pp �
€��.utt°RonRil
�k+kw�am.ar,
q
_� i NY1d8310 � *eS�.
� aasoawa � �� d 77
•�. wxevw� �vw oeeeawwus .. E� j fi
Mw Am,mlgd suawddw ! -m)'�v w- p ;
8 vd0o'd am
6 "Rold 8E64
0r
t ara7 $moans
� �� y� Naf�AfPUlls
s
awmp-0rnrmz i
� NYld Ella � G �I 8211108 PS£4 �
�4nnaa, �
,no„ru •rmma - - ..-$ 5 - :d3Nxa _. rrn:xHiav �na'�z I awnv++!.m
I,
I'41 FROS�
OVON
I� o
--------
t
D' F,4
�1 all,
e
LU
Q. J
1
l%
.- Y \
I
d'
tE s 1
LU
it I aF.. a i 1 Z.
I
W
Ju
ED Q
IN
- 6b
ttpp lees awnn�u�
Qvo® duuyvc�nl u3nr
,. 77�Rl+�gif. Q7o
Sf aift, �Y�a '
�3 .L80 re��°V 780yd urtos to aoq ,
R4�'ly � Ar. moi: J
� 8� t� Na16�a7nsr
� Y
R p �
"i
uo
s WV.4
�� jlkYl3a adaNu]9NV Nola9Vh• ._.. N-r5� t+ero gid. m��nH�fri OW. 10'A94re¢ P
w,uu -evw� aaue�unoiav it - �� •� € � '. -, �•
-��23 Q ..�...-., ..._.�..... ..._. .,._._...... a_..._ rldFerwa,m+sla.0 �xn�u
'a'd Lm3 s �SUOVUV
N
MIME
oez�nxB3aae�c�04
xdaaM
I `� Y I NOLLVh3190H'/Mlhi WOii j� { €'0116
'01'I 6Wa2i 8Ef4
' Cillos , slYtllf�TC�
LI
i
I
'I
i
I
- ---___
wwrwo
aa.._.......aJ
E
I
u
I
S7
I
N33
E
I
S7
I
N33
a
I
a
e
i
u�
1
: ..i
I
�I
0
0
q
lig
I
iI`I`
Y
I
I
I
i.
idl
,
s�lv�aanr - F•^�hNS7lytl[d Si19`91Nk[1d�/VM�
W3tsAa �NNI1FNl
'3116 apoN a84 i Nib'. AO;rna
1 S _ NOIIrTIvd6k W2.lSArJ N�liaNd!#Wd ^^ e3L10119f6 P
�. .. a J' V
' _..,..._ _... ,.. _. `b.t. a°n
_ -
.LOS ANl'?H i.Nd$
M F w
OEC j #
@ ? OEC
I ggg
.aural
i'�38 � �` A II ..&fit.. ............. ....._...... ................ ------... I I �'�
i
I �-
w
t�
og
c
a
m
�
�:!01
z
I
f er
Qa 773�rj' a7a
5107 aNy",9 7Jj1 BWaoJ to aNu
NVR9T3' � Nl�7N"ua�8 � A+015f4fQs�
S
Ire
w
�I
�:!01
z
E
v 3,
I
3
4r .t
3' a4l
F]•
IV
r
�7
g �
ix t
�
pp gt
I: kL
jByF
'#
-
w
L
,1,
v 3,
I
3
4r .t
3' a4l
F]•
L
,1,
H&H
MEMORANDUM
To: Bruce M. Flower, Chairman, and
the Town of Wappinger Planning Board
Date: August 14, 2025
41.1 Theodore Frerrrd Ave, Suite 206 South
Rye, NY 10580
T: 97.4,967.6540
www.liardestyhanover.com
Subject Citgo Gas Station Expansion -1336 US -9, Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
As requested, we have reviewed the Site Plan, as well as the video of the Planning Board Meeting
held on June 16, 2025. The proposal is to increase the existing four fueling positions to six fueling
positions and orient the fueling position locations.
Our office conducted field observations on Wednesday, August 6, 2025 from 4:00 to 6:00 P.M.
Based on our observations the maximum queue was found to be 5 vehicles waiting for a pump to
free up, which backed almost to U.S. Route 9. About 90% of vehicles entered/exited the site via
U.S. Route 9. Due to excessive wait times, some vehicles exited back onto U,S. Route 9 without
fueling. Vehicles entering from U.S. Route 9 were observed traveling at a fast speed to avoid a rear
end condition and turning into the site.
The following section provides our comments and evaluation of the Applicant's information provided;
Review Comments
1. Site Traffic Generation — The Board questioned the increase in traffic due to the increase in
fueling positions proposed by the Applicant. Based on the latest Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), "Trip Generation," 11th Edition, the increase in fueling positions is estimated
to result in an increase in total site traffic at the site driveways of 21, 27 and 26 vehicle trip
ends during the weekday morning, weekday afternoon and Saturday midday peak hours,
respectively.
NYSDOT allows a 25 percent pass -by credit for vehicles that are already on the adjacent
roadways that will now stop at the site as they pass. This results in a reduction of 6, 7 and 6
vehicle trip ends during the weekday morning, weekday afternoon and Saturday midday peak
hours, respectively. This results in a total of 15, 20 and 20 new vehicle trip ends to the
adjacent roadway network during the weekday morning, weekday afternoon and Saturday
midday peak hours, respectively. The attached Table 1 provides the site traffic estimates in
more detail. As noted, our observations found that some motorists would pull in and then
leave the site due to long wait times (unmet demand).
Page 2
August 14, 2025
2, On -Site Queueing — The Applicant has stated that the additional two fueling positions will
help reduce existing queueing issues at the fueling positions. While the additional fueling
positions may reduce wait times, the proposal will likely also see an increase in site traffic
due to additional pumps, as shown in the site traffic estimates and field observations of unmet
demand, which may result in queueing conditions similar to existing conditions. In addition,
the way the fueling positions are laid out in the proposal most likely will lead towards an
intermittent condition when all six pumps are occupied. When this occurs, the seventh
vehicle will likely wait behind the first fueling position, thus reducing the available queuing
space down to three vehicles.
3. Internal Circulation — The Board was concerned with proposed internal circulation and the
crossing of opposing traffic trying the exit the site to Old Hopewell Road, especially when the
fueling truck is on-site. To better improve on-site circulation, we recommend restricting the
Old Hopewell Road to "right turn entering only" and all traffic required to exit via the northerly
driveway to U.S. Route 9. This would reduce internal conflict concerns and have traffic
flowing into and out of the site generally in a counterclockwise direction (Note: driver's will
likely not be familiar with the restrictions and still try to navigate back to Old Hopewell Road).
The angle of the fueling stations may help mitigate this movement.
4. Crash Data — The Applicant should provide and summarize in a tabular format crash data at
the existing driveways for the latest three-year period.
Findings
As noted above, the addition of two new fueling positions will likely result in an increase of total site
traffic to the site and adjacent roadway network during the weekday morning, weekday afternoon
and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively. While the additional fueling positions will likely
reduce wait times on-site, the proposal will also likely see an increase in site traffic, as shown in the
site traffic estimates, which may result in queueing conditions similar to existing conditions.
To better improve on-site circulation, potential changes could include changing the Old Hopewell
Road to right turn entering only and all traffic exiting via the northerly driveway to U.S. Route 9, which
would reduce internal conflict concerns and have traffic flowing into and out of the site generally in a
counterclockwise direction.
Page 3
August 14, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
Steven T. Cipolla, PE, PTOE
Senior Traffic Engineer
Hardesty & Hanover, LLC
RESOLUTION
TOWN OF WAPPINGER PLANNING BOARD
RE: CITGO 1336 ROUTE 1336 ROUTE 9 LLC — RESOLUTION DENYING AMENDED SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
At a regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York,
held at Town Hal[, 20 Middlebush Road, Wappingers Falls, New York on the 21st day of January, 2026
at 7:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Bruce M. Flower and the Planning Board
member attendance was as follows:
Bruce M. Flower
PRESENT
Paul Freno
PRESENT
Markos Peratikos
ABSENT
Thomas Truss Jr.
ABSENT
James Glor[oso
PRESENT
Richard Barth
PRESENT
Robert Meehan
PRESENT
The following resolution was moved by PAUL FRENO and seconded by
JAMES,GLGRIOSO
WHEREAS, the Town of Wappinger Planning Board (the "Planning Board") received an
application from Mark Dombal (the "Applicant") on behalf of 1336 Route 9 LLC for Amended Site
Plan approval to; add one fueling pump and relocate the existing two fueling pumps; relocate and
modify the existing canopy to accommodate the additional and relocated pumps; remove an existing
shed; modify existing lighting; modify and relocate doors of the existing convenience store; and
modify and repair existing paving and curbing (the "Project" or "Proposed Action"); and
WHEREAS, the property is located at 1336 Route 9, identified as Tax Lot 6157-02-614569,
consisting of approximately 0,68 acres in the Highway Business (HB) zoning district (the "Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted the following materials; Application for Site Plan
Approval dated 1131125; Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 dated 411125; narratives
dated 411125 and 5122125; a comment response memorandum by Mark Dombal dated 5122125;
vehicle turning template drawings (6 sheets) dated 5116125; and a set of plans (generally entitled
"1336 Route 9 LLC") prepared by Anthony Sottile dated 6123125, with sheets including lighting and
landscaping, as more fully described in the record; and
WHEREAS, the Town's planning consultant, Hardesty & Hanover, reviewed the application
and issued a memorandum dated June 13, 2025 identifying deficiencies and required revisions
regarding photometrics, luminaire count, fixture heights, color temperature, and traffic/internal
circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Town's consulting engineer, Paggi Engineering, reviewed the application
and issued memoranda dated October 3„ 2025 noting, among other things: (i) the need for
approvals/permits from NYSDOT (U.S. Route 9) and Dutchess County DPW (Old Hopewell Road)
before site plan approval and prior to commencement of work; (ii) potential front setback
nonconformitles related to the canopy, possibly necessitating a variance if the canopy footprint is
enlarged; and (iii) the need to complete and clarify construction details, show existing trees potentially
affected by curb relocation, and show existing septic/sewage disposal areas,; and
WHEREAS, Dutchess County Department of Public Works, by letter dated April 23, 2025,
advised that the turning movements for a WB -50 truck indicate the truck would block both lanes on
County Route 28 (Old Hopewell Road) if entering on a red light; that the existing exit to State Route
9 northbound appears navigable by the delivery vehicle; and that the County will not allow removal
of the channellzation at Old Hopewell Road; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board's traffic consultant, Hardesty & Hanover, reviewed the Site
Plan and the June 16, 2025 Planning Board meeting video, conducted field observations on August
6, 2025 from 4:00-6;00 PM, and issued memoranda dated August 14, 2025 and October 2, 2025,
finding, inter alla, maximum queues of five vehicles backing almost to U.S. Route 9, approximately
90% of vehicles entering/exiting via U.S. Route 9, unmet demand causing vehicles to leave without
fueling, and recommending operational restrictions (right -turn -in only from Old Hopewell Road and
all egress via the northerly U.S, Route 9 driveway) to reduce internal conflicts; and further concluding
that adding two fueling positions would increase site traffic and could perpetuate queuing similar to
existing conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is familiar with the Site and surrounding area and has
reviewed the Project in accordance with the Town Zoning Law (Chapter 240) standards for site plan
approval; and
SEQRA
WHEREAS, the Planning Board determined that the Proposed Action is a Type II action
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (°SEQRA"), requiring no further environmental
review; and
PROCEDURAL HISTORY; PUBLIC HEARING; REF'E'RRALS
WHEREAS, in accordance with General Municipal Law §§ 239-1 and 239-m, the Planning
Board referred the application to the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development,
which responded by letter dated December 8, 2025, stating the matter is of local concern but
commenting that the submitted lighting plan does not sufficiently demonstrate existing and proposed
fixture details and lighting levels for the entire site and recommending that the Planning Board require
a plan that adheres to the applicable requirements in Section 240-23 of the Town Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Code § 240-88, the Planning Board conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on November 3, 2025, at which all persons wishing to speak were heard; and
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Site and Proposal
o The Site contains an existing gasoline station and convenience store, with two fueling
pumps; the Applicant proposes to add one pump (increasing fueling positions),
relocate existing pumps, and modify the canopy accordingly; additional site changes
include lighting modifications, door relocations, and paving/curb work.
2. Traffic. Safety, and Internal Circulation Town Code §240 -86(A) -(C)
o Heid observations documented queues up to five vehicles, backing almost to U.S.
Route 9, with 90% of vehicles entering/exiting via U.S. Route 9, and some vehicles
leaving due to excessive wait times, indicative of unmet demand at existing
conditions.
o The Planning Board's traffic consultant concluded that while additional fueling
positions may reduce individual wait times, they would also increase site traffic and,
given the proposed pump orientation and on-site circulation, would likely result in
queueing conditions similar to existing conditions, including reduced queuing storage
when all six pumps are occupied.
o To mitigate internal conflicts and improve circulation, the consultant recommended
restricting Old Hopewell Road access to right -turn entering only and requiring all exit
movements via the northerly driveway to U.S. Route 9, which would promote
counterclockwise circulation; however, the Applicant has not incorporated these
operational changes.
o Crash data from NYSDOT CLEAR confirms eleven crashes between January 1, 2022
and February 28, 2025 at or near the Site, including four at the U.S. Route 9 entrance,
one at Old Hopewell Road driveway, and six on-site, with two injury crashes,
underscoring existing safety concerns that must be addressed in any expansion.
o Dutchess County DPW advised the WB -50 delivery truck turning plan would block
both lanes on County Route 28 if entering the intersection on red and prohibited
removal of the Old Hopewell channelization, constraining feasible changes at the
County approach and implicating onsite circulation design.
8. Acres Management and Agency Approvals Town Code„ X240-84(8),�§240-86(B), (H) -(I)
o Portions of the proposed work lie within or depend upon the rights-of-way and access
of NYSDO)T (U.S, Route 9) and Dutchess County DPW (Old Hopewell Road). The
Applicant must demonstrate approvals from these agencies prior to site plan approval
and obtain permits prior to commencement of work; no such approvals have been
demonstrated in the record to date.
4. Lighting Com fiance Town Code 240-23 §240-86(F)
o The Applicant's lighting submission lacks acomplete photometric plan demonstrating
foot-candle levels and interactions of proposed and existing lighting;; and the
luminaire schedule contains inconsistencies between counts and depicted locations,
5, Plan Completeness and Engineering Details Town Code 240-84
o Additional construction details are required, including asphalt/pavement, curbing, and
island details; clarification of a "Sidewalk with Grass Plot" detail; addressing potential
ponding from a 24 -Inch gutter at the mountable curb; details for all new/rebuilt
curbing; depiction of existing trees potentially impacted along the north side by curb
relocation and 2 -ft pavement expansion; depiction of the existing on-site sewage
disposal area, clarification of jurisdictional requirements along State and County
rights-of-way, and providing associated notes and details as required by the
NYSDOT and Dutchess County DPW.
5. Zoning Nonconformities and Potential Variance Town Code 240-88
o The plan indicates front setback nonconformities related to properties on two
County/State highways (75 feet each per Town Code Chapter 240, Attachment 4).
While existing conditions may be legally nonconforming, enlargement of the canopy
footprint may require a variance; the Applicant has not demonstrated that a variance
is unnecessary or that relief has been obtained.
7. Applicant Submissions and Responses
o The Applicant's May 22, 2025 narrative asserts revisions addressing traffic flow and
maneuvering, including revising the delivery truck to exit to Route 9 North, updating
truck dimensions, adding parked cars to templates, adding photometrics and
landscaping pages, proposing a mountable curb channelization with details, adding
curbing/pavement replacement details, and changing canopy design; however, the
Planning Board's consultants identified continuing deficiencies and safety concerns
as outlined above, and the Applicant has not incorporated the Board's traffic
operational recommendations to resolve internal conflicts and queuing impacts.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Site Plan. Approval Standards Based on the record, the Board finds that the Project fails to
demonstrate safe and adequate on-site circulation and access management, faits to mitigate
documented queuing that encroaches toward U.S. Route 9, and does not resolve conflict
points exacerbated by the proposed fueling position orientation and increased site traffic
identified by the Town's traffic consultant, resulting in adverse traffic and safety impacts
inconsistent with applicable site plan standards under Town Zoning Law Chapter 240. See
Town Code §240-83, §240-84, §240-86
2. Agency Approvals as Prerequisites. The Applicant has not provided evidence of necessary
NYSDOT and DCDPW approvals and permits for work affecting U.S. Route 9 and Old
Hopewell Road. Given County DPW's prohibition on removing channelization and the
delivery truck lane blockage concern at Old Hopewell Road, the absence of agency approvals
further precludes a finding that access and circulation will be safe and adequate, See Town
Code §240-84(8), §240-86(B), § 240 -86(H) -(I)
3. Pian Com leteness and Com fiance. Lighting submissions are deficient and noncompliant
with the applicable requirements of Section 240-23 of the Town Code; plan details remain
incomplete; potential vegetation impacts and on-site septic features are not shown; The
application therefore fails to satisfy the completeness and technical sufficiency necessary for
approval. See Town Code §240-23, §240-84
4. Variance Contingency. The potential enlargement of the canopy footprint may necessitate a
front setback variance. No such variance has been granted, and the Applicant has not
demonstrated compliance or that the Project would not become more nonconforming. See
Town Code §240-38
5. SEQRA, The Proposed Action is Type 11; no further SEQRA action is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby denies the application for
Amended Site Plan Approval for the Project at 1336 Route 9, Tax Lot 6157-024614569, for the
following reasons, each of which is independently sufficient for denial and all of which collectively
warrant denial:
1. Traffic and Safety. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that internal circulation, access
operations, and fueling position orientation will provide safe and adequate traffic flow and will
not exacerbate queuing that presently backs toward U.S, Route 9; the Applicant has not
incorporated the Board's traffic consultant's recommended operational restrictions to mitigate
internal conflicts, and crash data evidences existing safety issues requiring mitigation not
provided by the application.
2. Reguired Agency Approvals._ The Applicant failed to submit evidence of necessary
approvals/permits from NYSDOT and DCDPW for work and operations affecting U3. Route
9 and Old Hopewell Road; DCDPN's prohibition on removing channelization and concern
regarding WB -50 blocking lanes further constrains feasible design and remains
unaddressed,
3. Lighting Noncompliance and Plan Deficiencies. The application lacks a compliant
photometric plan, , and contains inconsistencies in luminaire countsllocations; construction
and site details remain incomplete; existing trees potentially impacted are not shown; and
existing septiclsewage disposal features are not shown,
4. Zonina Compliance/Variance. The plan indicates front setback nonconformities that may be
intensified by canopy enlargement and may require a variance; no variance has been
obtained, and compliance has not been demonstrated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board's denial is without prejudice to a future, duly
filed amended application that comprehensively addresses the foregoing deficiencies with revised
plans, agency determinations/permits, safety and circulation measures consistent with the Town's
traffic consultant recommendations or equivalent engineering solutions, complete lighting
compliance or requested waivers, and all required engineering, landscaping, and health department
documentation.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which
resulted as follows:
The question of adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted
as follows:
Bruce M. Flower
AYE
Paul Freno
AYE
Markos Peratikos
NIA
Thomas Truss Jr.
NIA
James Glorioso
AYE
Richard Barth
AYE
Robert Meehan
AYE
The resolution is hereby duly declared adopted.
Dated: January 21, 2026
Wappingers Falls, New York
Bruce M. Flower, Chairman
Town of Wappinger Planning Board
o� 19
Date