Planning board authorizes draft environmental review for Fishkill Commerce Center after debate over 305,000 cubic yards of fill

The Town of Fishkill Planning Board voted 6–1 on July 9 to authorize consultant MJ Engineering to prepare an EAF Part 3 and a draft negative declaration for the proposed Fishkill Commerce Center and to schedule a public hearing for Sept. 10, 2026.

The decision followed hours of technical testimony and board discussion about a project that would disturb about 24 acres, import roughly 305,000 cubic yards of fill (board members discussed average site raises between four and 10 feet), and construct a large warehouse complex. Consultant Joe Robicheaux, presenting geotechnical findings, told the board: “based on the project as it's currently planned, even with the fill, we don't anticipate any significant impacts to the aquifer underneath this site.” The applicant’s planning consultant and hydrogeology team also said monitoring and design measures would limit groundwater effects.

But several planning board members pushed back. Kevin said the scale of earthwork and conversion of an open golf-course parcel merited concern: “To me, it is significant,” he said, arguing that the volume of fill and the site’s visibility could constitute a large environmental effect that should be studied in more depth.

Why it matters: The site lies within an aquifer-protection overlay and near mapped town wells; board members and consultants debated whether engineered mitigation and proposed trail-easement measures to preserve future aquifer access are sufficient. Board attorney Dominic reviewed SEQRA criteria and urged members to be precise about what impacts, if any, would be studied in an EIS. Proponents noted that many outside agency approvals and technical studies (stormwater, hydrogeology, traffic) are part of the record.

What the board decided: By majority vote the board authorized its consultant to prepare the next-stage environmental materials (EAF Part 3) and a draft negative declaration (i.e., a finding of no significant adverse environmental impacts) for consideration. The action does not finalize a determination; it directs staff to draft documents that the board will review, edit, and then vote on. The board set a public hearing for Sept. 10, 2026, to collect public input as part of the next steps.

Next steps: MJ Engineering will prepare the Part 3 analysis and the draft notice of determination for board review. The public hearing on Sept. 10 will give residents an opportunity to comment; the board may then adopt, revise or reject the draft negative declaration or instead issue a positive declaration and require an environmental impact statement.

Board reaction and context: Members who favored moving toward a negative declaration emphasized the applicant’s technical responses, proposed mitigation and the traffic analyses that already modeled construction and operational truck activity. Members urging a more rigorous review pointed to the large fill volume, potential permanent changes in ground-surface elevation, and the project’s siting over an aquifer as reasons an EIS could be warranted.

The board’s motion to authorize the drafting of Part 3 and the draft negative declaration passed 6–1.