Fishkill Zoning Board Hears Heated Debate on Duchess Manor 50‑Foot Zoning Offset and Overflow Parking

The Town of Fishkill Zoning Board of Appeals on June 16 heard more than two hours of public testimony on a request by the Duchess Manor restoration team to apply RB zoning regulations up to 50 feet into adjacent R2A residential land under Town Code §150-11, a procedural determination that the applicant says is necessary to permit a small overflow parking area and related site features.

Helen MCH, a partner at the law firm Mincer MCH representing the applicant, described the plan as a scaled‑back restoration of a former catering venue and said the project aims to ‘‘restore, thoughtfully redesign and landscape’’ the property while reducing unsafe roadside parking on Route 9D. She asked the board to consider the code provision and the planning board’s prior action: the planning board adopted a negative declaration and issued a certificate of appropriateness for planning board application PB24‑010 on April 9, 2026.

Neighbors and other members of the public were sharply divided. David Watson of Cold Spring said he ‘‘welcome[s] many visitors’’ and supports parking that will reduce dangerous roadside parking. Several hikers and trail advocates, including Paul Thompson and Michael McKee, urged approval on safety grounds and recommended design measures such as screening and a future review of parking demand.

Opponents, including nearby property owners and neighborhood groups, raised legal and procedural objections. Aaron Sin Witson, who lives adjacent to the parcel, emphasized the board’s discretion under §150‑11, saying, ‘‘The code says that less restrictive district regulations may be extended. May, not shall,’’ and asked the board to deny the request. Multiple neighbors argued the two parcels at issue were consolidated on April 17, 2026 and that the merger was engineered to create eligibility for the offset; Douglas Richards told the board the change ‘‘appears intended to depress the value of the properties’’ and warned the proposal would bring substantial trail‑driven traffic.

Other critics framed the application as a form of project segmentation. Dave Morandi, president of Protect the Highlands and a former mayor of Cold Spring, urged the board to consider whether Duchess Manor is being treated as a standalone site when it is planned to serve as a hub for the larger Fjord Trail; he said the cumulative effects of multiple lots and shuttle operations deserve full review. Susan Peele and others likewise said piecemeal filings before different boards can obscure the project’s overall scale and impacts.

The applicant team responded that both lots were purchased and planned together, that the project has been repeatedly scaled back in response to neighbor concerns, and that the planning board has already reviewed the site plan. Peter Mullen, identified as president of the Fjord Trail, told the board the design choices were made to balance neighborhood impacts and visitor access. Applicant counsel said stamped surveys exist for both original lots and that the consolidated tax parcel number would be submitted to the record.

Board members focused on documentary evidence and legal framing rather than the broader merits. Several members asked for a signed, stamped survey showing zoning boundaries and lot lines before deciding whether the parcel meets the 50% area test that triggers §150‑11; one board member said scaled plans can distort results when the difference between 50% eligibility and non‑eligibility is fractions of an acre. The chair and other members also flagged concerns about whether the lot configuration was self‑created and how that should affect discretion under the code.

Procedure and next steps: the board voted to close the public hearing contingent on the applicant submitting the consolidated tax parcel number and the signed, stamped survey (the board set a short submission window). The members then voted to adjourn deliberations until the board’s July 21, 2026 meeting to obtain counsel guidance and to give the applicant time to file the requested documents; the applicant agreed in principle to a short waiver of statutory deadlines if the board required an extra day. The meeting concluded with the board entering an attorney‑client session.

What the board did not do: no final determination under §150‑11 was made at the June 16 meeting, and the planning board’s site‑plan review remains a separate required step. The ZBA’s pending decision will hinge on whether the consolidated tax lot and survey documentation satisfy the area test and on counsel guidance about how to exercise the board’s discretion under the code.

The board is scheduled to revisit the matter July 21, 2026; the applicant was asked to place the consolidated tax parcel number and a stamped survey into the meeting record in advance.