Clinton planning board hears mixed public comment on East Clinton firehouse; sets conditional approval timeline

The Town of Clinton Planning Board on Monday heard opposing public testimony and consultant recommendations on the East Clinton Fire District’s proposed new firehouse, closed the public hearing and agreed to consider a conditional approval at its next regular meeting.

Cynthia Cook, president of the Clinton Historical Society, read a letter responding to the State Historic Preservation Office’s Dec. 15, 2025 review and said the SHPO “remain[ed] concerned about potential visual and noise impacts to the Creek Meeting House and Cemetery.” Cook urged the board to require a two-part mitigation approach: a planted screen (she recommended Western Arborvitae in triads, at least 12 feet high, with irrigation) plus a hard, sound-absorbing wall at least 6 feet high. Cook also offered the historical society’s access to landscape designer Michael Weishan as a low-cost consultant to help meet the SHPO conditions.

Other residents spoke in favor of the project’s visibility and the volunteer department. "The Creek Meeting House is not a residence, is not occupied 24 hours a day," said Russ Tompkins, a town resident and fire commissioner, arguing the new facility will not increase emergency responses and urging the board to apply a balancing test weighing safety benefits against historic impacts. A written letter from Richard Nosher was read into the record expressing support for the firehouse and urging the board to approve the plans.

Applicant representative Joe told the board the design team had resubmitted materials to the Dutchess County Health Department and the county public-works office; he said the health department asked that roughly 40 gallons per day of treatment-system discharge be routed into the septic system rather than a separate discharge, adding a chamber to the septic design, and that these changes were minor and expected to be addressed quickly. Joe said he and the project team would provide the requested verifications and revised plan sheets.

Planning and engineering consultants told the board that most comments were minor edits related to landscaping and lighting and that engineering issues could be handled engineer-to-engineer. The planner recommended that the resolution for approval include consultants’ letters as conditions and that the applicant provide a minimum number of plantings on the site plan so the board could enforce a specific planting quantity rather than a schematic note.

The board chair moved to close the public hearing; a member seconded and the chair called for favor by voice. The board did not take a final substantive vote on the application that night. Instead, consultants and staff recommended the board consider a conditional approval at its next meeting, with conditions that would include addressing SHPO recommendations as appropriate, providing health-department and DPW approvals, and documenting how each consultant comment was satisfied. Consultants also proposed a construction-inspection escrow to fund spot inspections of landscaping, curbing, parking and stormwater features before a certificate of occupancy is issued.

The board set its next regular meeting for March 3 and agreed to keep the written record open for one week to allow additional comments on the revised plans. Applicant Joe agreed to submit a modified site sheet showing the reduced planting area in front of the apparatus bays and to provide a minimum planting number for inclusion in the resolution.

If the applicant returns with health-department and DPW approvals and the consultants’ conditions addressed, the board indicated it would consider a conditional approval at the March meeting. Otherwise, the matter will be carried forward until conditions are met.