Neighbors press planning board over proposed contractor’s yard at 225 Robinson; questions on flooding, wash station and vehicle counts

The East Fishkill Planning Board on June 16 heard extended public comment on a proposed contractor’s yard and vehicle-storage operation at 225 Robinson, with residents and an environmental reviewer urging additional technical analysis and stricter limits on vehicle washing, fuel storage and vehicle counts.

Applicant representatives (Dan Sosa Engineering and the applicant’s team) presented a revised plan that shifts the storage area toward the adjacent business zone to increase buffering from residences. The applicant said stormwater design has been reworked in response to soil testing and that stormwater measures under consideration include vegetated dry swales, bioretention and one or more hydrodynamic (oil-water) separators. The applicant reported a worst-case traffic estimate of 189 trips in a peak day with an expected average approximately 33% lower and said the storage area could hold roughly 50 vehicles and pieces of equipment.

Residents at the podium said those numbers, and the proposed vehicle-wash area, pose risks to drinking-water wells and property values. Doug Welch, a neighbor, invoked historical regional contamination and told the board he has observed recurring flooding on nearby properties; he said that once contaminants reach wells they can cause long-term harm. Linda Hassid, who said she lives on Robinson Lane, told the board she was not reassured that impacts to noise, dirt and traffic had been addressed and asked planners to "thoroughly look at this and ask the hard questions." Kristen Melendez, a self-described environmental scientist who submitted written comments, gave a detailed critique of the plans, requesting stronger floodplain protections, anchoring and alarm systems for oil-water separators, more-frequent maintenance and inspection schedules, an environmental baseline assessment, and consideration of avoiding an on-site vehicle-wash station or connecting any wash discharge to a permitted wastewater system.

Melendez asked the town to restrict fuel storage on site, prohibit stockpiling of loose commodities (stone/aggregate/salt) in the storage area, limit equipment sizes and numbers, and require access to design-flow and wash-station water-use figures; she also requested that the town require a no-action alternative and consider wildlife-friendly erosion controls rather than hay bales or plastic fencing. She said in part, "This particular proposal is not compatible for this local area," and asked the board to consider requiring the applicant to connect to a public water system if vehicle washing proceeds.

Applicant representatives and consultants responded that the site will be designed to DEC standards, that hydrodynamic separators and vegetated treatment areas will be sized and maintained per regulation, and that they will add more information in the next submission. The applicant said a temporary highway-work permit could allow staged access while the formal dedication and NYSDOT permit proceed.

After public comment, the applicant agreed to revise plans and work with town consultants; the board adjourned the public hearing to the July 21, 2026 meeting and voted to declare the planning board lead agency for the SEQR review. No approval or denial occurred; the record remains open for additional technical materials and peer-review responses.