Fishkill planning board defers subdivision decision after floodplain questions; public hearing set for Feb. 20

The Village of Fishkill Planning Board on Jan. 16 deferred action on a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 35 Rapple J Road after extensive discussion about mapped floodplain boundaries, setbacks and whether the lot may be subdivided under village code.

The applicant and their engineer said a revised survey submitted to FEMA moved the mapped floodplain line north by roughly 20 feet, which allowed most of the proposed building footprint to be outside the revised line. The consultant said, however, that roughly 35.7% of one lot still lies within the mapped floodplain. A staff member cited Village code Section 39‑40 (land subject to fire, flood and other hazards), which says land subject to such hazards “shall not be subdivided nor developed for residential purposes” unless safe for building.

Chairman Hansson and other board members said that determining whether the property may be subdivided is a board decision but that the building inspector should issue the formal interpretation on where setbacks should be measured from. “I definitely need time to hear an interpretation of the village code from the building inspector and also from Council to help us make a decision,” Hansson said.

Nick Warner, the new building inspector, told the board he would not be comfortable rendering a formal interpretation that night but could provide one before the next meeting so the applicant could respond and decide a course of action.

The owner and neighbor, M. Guan, urged the board to move the application forward and disputed that the site presents a practical flood risk. “There’s no danger whatsoever ever,” Guan said, arguing that historical experience and earlier drainage work associated with nearby commercial development reduced flooding risk.

Staff and consultants cautioned that FEMA base flood elevations and mapping are derived from broad regional studies; while refined site surveys can shift the mapped line, overturning a mapped BFE or producing a binding hydrologic justification typically requires a hydrogeological study or additional FEMA process, which can be costly and time‑consuming.

Given the outstanding questions—whether the lot is legally subdividable under Section 39‑40, which line the setback should be measured from, and the need for potential variances—the board voted to open a public hearing on the subdivision at its Feb. 20 meeting at 6:00 p.m., and to accept written comments submitted in advance as part of the hearing notice. The building inspector will provide a written interpretation before that meeting; the board may then vote, or refer the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals for any required variances.

Next steps for the applicant include obtaining county documentation showing past lot configurations (if available), gathering photographic or other evidence about historical flooding at the site if available, and considering redesign options (repositioning the house, removing or relocating the garage, shared driveway) to meet setbacks if the inspector interprets them from the floodplain line.