Planning board tells town it found no unique hardship in waiver referral amid moratorium

The Wappinger Planning Board voted to tell the town board it did not find a unique hardship in materials submitted with a hardship‑waiver referral from Cuddy and Feder. The referral, dated May 19, 2026, asked the planning board for an advisory opinion that would accompany a petition to the town board.

Town counsel told the board the planning board’s role was advisory and that a moratorium currently in effect limits the planning board’s authority to consider substantive project details. Counsel summarized the evidence before the board: the submission listed a $4,300 application fee, a $10,000 escrow payment and unspecified additional costs. Counsel said those entries alone, as presented in the referral materials, were insufficient to demonstrate a unique hardship under local law.

During the discussion an applicant representative argued that paying the fees constituted financial hardship, saying, "I paid for it. So to me that is a hardship." Several board members and counsel disagreed that the materials provided established uniqueness or the other elements required by the town code, and they advised the applicant to petition the town board and present additional evidence there. After discussion the board voted to have the attorney draft a letter to the town board stating the planning board did not find a hardship and that the applicant would need to seek relief directly from the town board.

The vote ends the planning board’s advisory role on this referral; any appeal or further relief must be sought before the town board.