Back to Letters Selection Menu Home
East Fishkill Town Board
March 13, 2002

East Fishkill Town Hall
330 Route 376
Hopewell Junction, NY 12533

To be entered into the minutes of the East Fishkill Town Board meeting on March 14, 2002; and into the public comments for the East Fishkill Comprehensive Plan ("Master Plan"):

From past board meetings, we have been informed that there are "25,000" people that form the nucleus of the taxpaying public. You are asking this base to pay the bill enabling the following:

In the face of unbridled building, approximately 2,000 homes are on the drawing board for development throughout East Fishkill. There are also plans for business/industrial parks.

If this becomes reality, the present taxpayers are being asked to make changes affecting their quality of life.

To wit, the following are considerations that we feel should be addressed:

1. Water Supply: You are dependent upon the completion of the pipeline to extend to the Hamlet of Hopewell Junction and IBM. Presently, the funds are not available and completion of this project is in the future. Shouldn't the taxpayer have some input in this decision, or possibly even a vote? In the meantime, it would appear that you are willing to play Russian roulette with your handling of aquifers and wetlands. Also, the proposed water system affects only a small part of East Fishkill. Therefore it becomes imperative that we preserve the integrity of the aquifers and wetlands. We do not need another Superfund site. Neither do we want carbon filters on our wells.

2. All these developments demand tertiary systems dumping into the tributaries of the Fishkill Creek and ultimately into the Fishkill Creek - the third-most degraded waterway which supplies drinking water to Fishkill and Beacon in the Hudson Valley. The tertiary plants demand professional oversight and monitoring to guarantee that further degradation of the Fishkill Creek doesn't take place. At what cost? and to whom? Or, if this is going to be a base for a sewage system, shouldn't the existing taxpayer be informed; and shouldn't this be put to a vote?

3. The road system, strained as it is, will need massive upgrades throughout the Town. The County and State are under budgetary constraints. How is the Town of East Fishkill supposed to meet these exigencies? Is this cost to be borne by the taxpayer? Meanwhile, you are destroying existing residential neighborhoods, thus altering the "quality of life" of the residents. For what purpose?

4. We are building emergency school facilities now due to overcrowding and recent discussion of redistricting our children to other schools. By what magic are you going to accommodate the influx of the potential number of new students? Additional school monies are scarce and add heavily to school taxes.

5. One of the most attractive draws to the community is its Town Recreation Program. At what cost to the present taxpayer does extending and improving the present recreation program to accommodate these new people? The Town has said that we are short of facilities now. We are aware of recreation fees paid by developers. Is it enough; or does it translate into higher taxes?

6. We have a paid Police Department which is strained as it is. Has any thought been given to the scale of expansion needed to accommodate an enhanced community?

7. The Volunteer Fire Department has had difficulty attracting new members, suggesting that, in the near future, a non-volunteer fire department with salary and benefits seems likely. This also comes at the taxpayer's expense.

8. The need for an expanded Town Hall and its municipal personnel is present now and will require more facilities and personnel in the future.

In summation, the taxpayer is owed a complete environmental and economic study and a projected cost analysis looking to a worst-case scenario for the immediate impacts and for the outyear costs of all that has been outlined above.

As part of the study, the "quality of life" as it affects the neighborhoods of the Town should be addressed. We believe, at the taxpayer's expense, the town should implement such studies so that the general public and our elected representatives can make an informed decision as to the direction the Town will go.

Therefore, we are asking a moratorium of all building, except for single homes built by single builders on 1-acre lots or more. Measured development is desirable; sprawl should be avoided.

In our democracy, aren't we owed a chance to vote and to have our collective say as to what our community should be?

Also, please find attached letter to Mr. Robert Dennison, Regional Director N.Y.S. D.O.T., dated January 25, 2002.



Paul Wise



Robert Dennison, January 25, 2002

January 25, 2002

Robert Dennison
Regional Director N.Y.S. D.O.T.
4 Burnett Road
Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12601

Dear Mr. Dennison:

It has been suggested to us to send you this summary of our findings.

We would appreciate your careful attention and consideration in these matters.

Should you find any errors in our summary, we would appreciate your pointing them out to us.



Paul Wise
2 Hammer Drive
Hopewell Jct., N.Y. 12533

After careful review of the Master Plan of the Town of East Fishkill, we have become aware of significant and important changes in the proposal grid involving residential areas and significant route changes and adjustments.

Viable and disturbing facts have arisen here that demand an answer. By fragmenting all the elements of the plan to accommodate special interest, the "public" deserves further and complete explanation of the plan proposed.

Our findings are as follows:


A. Let's start with the map from the East Fishkill Master Plan depicting the following:

   *Route 52 to Carpenter Road (CR-29)
   *Carpenter Road (CR-29) to Beekman Road (CR-9)
   *Beekman Road (CR-9) to Rte. 82
   *Rte. 82 to the junction of Fishkill Road & Rte. 376
   *Fishkill Road to Rte. 82
   *Rte. 82 to Palen Road (CR-31)

1. The single bridge over the railroad tracks (CR-29) east of the Taconic State Parkway is replaced with a heavy-duty two lane bridge and newly graded approaches.
COST: Approximately 2.5 million dollars.
RESULT: This enables interstate-type trucks/trailers to use Carpenter Road (CR-29).

2. Bridge over the Fishkill Creek on Carpenter Road (CR-29) west of the Taconic State Parkway.

RESULT: Replaced with a heavy-duty bridge, a 40-ton capacity. It is now capable of interstate truck/trailer use, changing (CR-29), zoned residential, into a commercial route which would demand re-engineering of the existing road.

3. Remove monument at Beekman Road (CR-9) and Rte. 82 making it possible to extend (CR-9) to the juncture of Rte. 376 and Fishkill Road. Fishkill Road to Rte. 82 to Palen Road completes the bypass of the Hamlet of Hopewell Junction.

RESULT: This will enable mining interests to revisit the proposed soil and gravel pits without going through the hamlet.

4. Get the State DOT-Taconic Authority to build a grade-separated crossing at the Carpenter Road and Taconic State Parkway which will enable this project to be possible. Obviously, without the State authorities, the entire concept is unworkable. The DOT owes a rational explanation of why a multimillion dollar expenditure is justified and necessary.

Maps and plats are demonstrated and displayed in the updated Master Plan of East Fishkill.

Route (CR-29), of which Carpenter Road is a part, has been designated as a minor arterial route.

B. *Carpenter Road (CR-29) crossing at Beekman Road (CR-9) to Clove Branch Road (CR-29) to Route 376.

RESULT: Continuation of (CR-29) as an "arterial" providing an added alternate route for commercial truck/trailer traffic to the northern, eastern and western points of Dutchess County; again, through residentially zoned areas.

THE DETERMINATION: To use a segmented process to achieve a long term result is blatant segmentation. IT IS ILLEGAL. This entire project should be named. The public is owed the SEQR process including routes, alternative routes, environmental impacts in regard to wetlands, degradation of the Fishkill Creek (a watershed area). There should be a discussion of mitigating property disruption and devaluation. There should be alternative routes proposed. This would be demanded if the "Project No Name" was legitimized. A full statement in the pattern of the 1988 (CR11-CR9) study would be necessary.

All of the above is an unlawful way to force on the public a governmental outrage; in which the subtle hand with the velvet glove deals another blow to the body politic.

Back to Letters Selection Menu Home