Final Generic Impact StatementCONSTANCE O. SMITH
SUPERVISOR
TELEPHONE: (914) 297-2744
FAX: (914) 297-4558
Proposed Action:
Location:
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Contact- person :
Date of Acceptance:
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
FINAL
GENERIC IMPACT STATEMENT
Town of Wappinger NY
November 7, 1990
SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE
20 MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
P.O. BOX 324
WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590-0324
RECEIVED
Nov 09 1.990
ELAINE SNOWDEN
TOWN CLERK
Adoption of major revision to Zoning Ordinance
Townwide, Town of Wappinger NY
Town Board, Town of Wappinger NY
Raymond H. Arnold, Planning Consultant
Constance 0. Smith, Supervisor
Town of Wappinger NY
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls NY 12590
(914) 297-2744
Date of Public Hearing: October 18, 1990
Concurrent- hearing
proposed zoning changes &
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Place of Public Hearing: Roy C. Ketcham High School
Myers Corners Road
Wappingers Falls NY 12590
End of DEIS Comments Period: October 28, 1990
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
DUTCHESS COUNTY New York
Constance Smith, Supervisor
TOWN BOARD
Victor Fanuele
Joseph Incoronato
Robert Valdati
June Visconti
TOWN CLERK
Elaine Snowden
PLANNING BOARD
Donald Keller, Chairman
Edward Hawksley
Hugo Musto
James Mills
William Parsons
John Perillo
Chris Simonetty
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Michael Hirkala, Chairman
James Tompkins, Vice -Chairman
James Brooker
Alan Lehigh
Alberta Roe
Clerk to Planning Board & Zoning Board
Zoning Administrator
Herbert Levenson
ATTORNEY ENGINEER PLANNER
Albert P. Roberts Joseph E. Paggi Jr. Raymond H. Arnold
AGENCIES TO BE NOTIFIED:
The following Agencies have been sent copies of this Statement:
*
Town of
Wappinger Town Clerk
*
Town of
Wappinger Planning Board
Town of
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
*
Town of
Wappinger Conservation Advisory Council
Town of
Wappinger Architectural Review Board
*
Dutchess
County Office of County Executive
*
Dutchess
County, Clerk of Legislature
*
Dutchess
County Department of Planning
Dutchess
County Planning Board
*
Dutchess
County Environmental Management Council
Dutchess
County Department of Health
Dutchess
County Department of Public Works
Orange County Clerk of the Legislature
New York
State Department of Transportation
Commissioner NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
*
Region #3 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
School Districts:
Arlington Central School District
Beacon City School District
Wappinger Central School District
Fire Districts:
Chelsea Fire District
Hughsonville Fire District
New Hackensack Fire District
Town of East Fishkill
Town of Fishkill
Town of LaGrange
Town of Newburgh
Town of Poughkeepsie
Village of Wappingers Falls
REFERENCE COPIES:
Reference copies for review and inspection are on file in the following
libraries:
Grinnell Library
* as required by Section 32 LL # 2— 1977
i r:
OVERVIEW
OVERVEWF.EIS
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) consists of the following:
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (included by reference)
Executive Summary from the DEIS is included for clarity
Minutes of the Public Hearing
Ten persons spoke at the Public Hearing and had 9 comments
Comments from the Hearing are numbered A-1 through A-9
Comments, from the public, submitted in written form, during the
comment period
Nine pieces of correspondence were received
They are included and have been cataloged as B-1, B-2, etc.
Comments & recommendations contained in the Letter from the Dutchess
County Department of Planning, responding under the provisions of
Sections 239 1 & 239 m of the General Municipal Law.
Comments have been cataloged as C-1, C-2, etc.
Formal recommendations are listed as R-1 through R-7
Response to comments received
The responses prepared in this FEIS have been referenced by the
appropriate numbers listed above.
1
TLTSECIF.EIS
Section 1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (included by reference)
Executive Summary from the DEIS is included for clarity
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
EXSUMRYD.EIS
1. The major work and/or changes undertaken in this review include:
a. Review and recommendations in the level'of allowable densities,
in the various areas of Town, as they relate to the availability
and/or possibility of - "Community/public" water supply &
distribution; "community/public" sewage collection & treatment;
and an adequate road network.
b. Review and recommendation regarding the types of uses allowed
in the various districts as they relate to the existing
environmental constraints.
c. Addressing the need and/or compatibility of a range of
residential densities, including the "affordable housing" issue,
within the parameters of the Zoning Ordinance and within the
context of the recently adopted revisions to the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. Future review will consider:
a. Review of the Purposes & Definitions
b. Review and recommendations in the area of zoning administration
and code enforcement.
c. Review and recommendations in the area of review and approval
procedures for site plans & special permits.
d. Recommendations for addressing the sensitivity to the visual
aspects of site development, particularly along major corridors.
SPECIFIC REVIEW:
a. Review and recommendations in the level of allowable densities, in
the various areas of Town, as they relate to the availability and/or
possibility of - "Community/public " water supply & distribution;
"community/public" sewage collection & treatment; and an adequate road
network.
The vacant residential land areas of the Town were generally
remapped to the next lower density, consistent with the proposed
availability of public water and public sewers. Certain areas were
afforded options to lessen this effect, in order to direct some
residential growth into certain area shown on the adopted
comprehensive plan.
Allowable densities (via lot coverage restrictions and other bulk
regulations) were reduced for the vacant non-residential lands,
especially along the Route 9 corridor.
3
` �b. Review and recommendation regarding the types of uses allowed in
the various districts as they relate to the existing environmental
constraints.
The uses, other than single-family detached housing, allowed by
right, special use, and accessory to permitted uses, were revises
and/or modified in all single family districts.
A new Two -Family District was added to the list of districts.
No uses were changed in the Multi -family districts.
In the non-residential districts, some districts were combined
and/or renamed and the list of uses modified to reflect the
environmental conditions of the particular districts.
Three additional districts were designed and mapped "CC -
Conservation Commercial"; "HM - Hamlet Mixed Use"; "HD - Highway
Design all of which serve particular environmental concepts.
An MU -Mixed Use District was designed and listed in the ordinance.
The PI Planned Industrial zone was revised to 5 acre minimum, to
be utilized as an Industrial Park zone.
The OR -10A district was replaced in most part by the
COP -Conservation Office Park district, also having particular
environmental constraints/considerations in the district
regulations.
c. Addressing the need and/or compatibility of a range of residential
densities, including the "affordable housing" issue, within the
parameters of the Zoning Ordinance and within the context of the
recently adopted revisions to the Comprehensive Plan.
In the area of housing, the revised portions allow for ECHO
housing in all single family residential zones (accessory
apartments were added during the last couple of years); it
provides for the continued conversion of existing large old
structures for multi -family use; it strengthens the PUD standards
(which allows residential use of various densities/incomes); and
maintains the existing level of multi -family mapped districts, all
within the constraints of the present environmental setting within
the Town.
The mapping of R -2F (Two -Family) District & MU (Mixed Use)
District will add to the "affordable housing" stock.
0
T ac
Review of Generic Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The purpose of this review is to analyze the existing zoning, compare
it to the proposed zoning, and determine what, if any, negative
impacts result from the proposed zoning. In the event that the
proposed zoning results in a negative environmental impact, an
additional purpose of this report is to set forth appropriate
mitigation measures for such impacts.
The purpose of the environmental review is to incorporate the
consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning,
review and decision making processes of State, regional and local
governmental agencies at the earliest time.
It is also the intention that the protection and enhancement of the
environment, human and community resources should be given appropriate
weight with social and economic consideration in determining public
policy, and that those factors be considered together in reaching
decisions on proposed activities.
It is intended that a suitable balance of social, economic and
environmental factors be incorporated into the planning and
decision-making processes of the State, regional and local agencies,
and not that the environmental factors be the sole consideration in
decision-making.
The COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, adopted by the Planning Board on August 8,
1988, was designed to reduce densities with the Town, in order to
reduce stress upon the existing environment. The PLAN is flexible to a
limited degree, in order to allow an approach to development that
considers the social and economic factors and well as the
environmental factors.
Determination of Significance
Initial review of the proposed changes reveal that the changes are
designed to reduce the adverse environmental effect associated with
the development of the vacant lands within the Town, all in accordance
with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan .
It is therefore anticipated, that at the conclusion of the Public
Hearing, and prior to any decision, the Town Board, as lead agency
will adopt a "Negative Declaration" (a determination of no adverse
significance).
W!
I C
TLTSEC2F.EIS
Section 2
Minutes of the Public Hearing
Ten persons spoke at the Public Hearing and had 9
substantive comments
Comments from the Hearing are numbered A-1 through A-9
and are summarized for clarity
Full minutes are included for reference
Y
The following comments were received at the Public Hearing:
A-1 Morton Marks; property located S/E corner Myers Corners Road & Route 9
Desires Highway Business to establish Fast Food Restaurant
A-2 Todd Stall, Esq, representing Poughkeepsie Nissan
Property located along Route 9 - Auto Dealership in general
Questions feasibility of allowable density of inventory stored on
site.
A-3 Martin Lesko - all hamlet zoning
Why Residential-. zoning was changed to Hamlet Zone
A-4 Victor Owen, property located east side Route 9
Property proposed for HD (Highway Design) District (Along Old Route 9)
Desires HB (Highway Business) District in order to establish
Automotive use.
A-5 Mario Verna (Conservation Advisory Council)
Suggest that a more stringent ordinance is needed
The following recommendations were put forth:
Preserve area along Hudson River
Preserve continuous open spaces
Provide additional recreational lands
Allow higher density in non-critical areas of town
7
j � t
A-6 William Lenihan, Esq. representing Florence Radice
property located along Tn Fishkill border in vicinity of Chelsea
Hobbit Hill Farms
Objects to 2 acre zoning imposed upon property originally zoned
R-20
A-7 Michael Hirkala, Fowlerhouse Road
Objects to singular R -2F (Residential Two -Family District) zoning
on 5 acre parcel adjacent to property
A-8 Michael Hirkala, Fowlerhouse Road
Objects to Zoning boundary including B & D property (All Angels
Hill Road) being included in Commercial zoning.
A-9 Janet Hirkala, Fowlerhouse Road
Objects to singular R -2F (Residential Two -Family District) zoning
on 5 acre parcel adjacent to property
A-10 Herb Wallace, Cranberry Hills
A-11 Alan Lehigh, Orchard Drive
Congratulatory comments on proposed ordinance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I J
TOWN OF WAPPINGER : STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
-------------------------------------X
PUBLIC HEARING RE:
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ZONING ORDINANCE
--------------------------------------X
(APPEARANCES:
(ALSO PRESENT:
October 18, 1990
Roy C. Ketcham High School
New City, New York 10956
PUBLIC HEARING
TOWN BOARD
SUPERVISOR CONSTANCE SMITH
COUNCILMAN ROBERT VALDATI
COUNCILMAN VICTOR FANUELE
COUNCILMAN JOSEPH INCORONATO
COUNCILWOMAN JUNE VISCONTI
HERBERT LEVENSON, Zoning Administrator
RAYMOND ARNOLD, AICP Town Planner
AL ROBERTS, ESQ., Town Attorney
ELAINE SNOWDEN, Town Clerk
GLADYS RUIT, Deputy Town Clerk
Robin E. DiMichele
Senior Court Reporter
State of New York
X
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing -
SUPERVISOR SMITH: I'd like to call this
public hearing to order, please.
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mr. Fanuele.
COUNCILMAN FANUELE: Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mr. Incoronato.
COUNCILMAN INCORONATO: Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mr. Valdati.
COUNCILMAN VALDATI: Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mrs. Visconti.
COUNCILWOMAN VISCONTI: Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mrs. Smith.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Here.
MRS. S14OWDEN: All present, ma'am.
I would like to offer for the record, the
affidavit of posting and the affidavit of
publication. Notices were sent out to the Town of
Wappinger Planning Board, the Dutchess County
Department of Planning, the adjoining
municipalities, and about 20 other people. We have
received the recommendations from the Dutchess
County Department of Planning, and we've also
received a letter of correspondence from a Mr.
George Lithko, an attorney representing landowners
in the Town of Wappinger, and he's distributed the
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing -
letter to the council people.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: I have some other letters
to offer for the record. Do you want me to give
them to you and you can read them off?
MRS. SNOWDEN: Yes. All right. The first
one is from Morton I. Marks, Wappinger Realty
Associates; Mr. and Mrs. Victor Owen; Mr. William
H. Meyer; another one from Morton I. Marks,
Wappinger Realty Associates; the one I just
mentioned, Mr. George Lithko. That's it.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Okay. The purpose of
tonight's public hearing is to hear comments from
the public in relations to our proposed zoning
ordinance which has been proposed for quite some
time. We are in the process of doing the F.E.I.S.
We have accepted the D.E.I.S. as complete, and the
F.E.I.S. will be back to us on October 29th. We
will not vote on this until after we discuss and
look over the comments that we get tonight. We will
also have to wait for the F.E.I.S., so it will
probably be November 19th. We expect to have a
special meeting, however, if something happens and
we have a drastic change we'll have to move that
date.
9-3
k3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 4
Can I have the list of those people who'd
like to speak?
I'd like to introduce to you the people who
are sitting here. Our Zoning Administrator Herb
Levenson; Vic Fanuele, Councilman; Robert Valdati,
Councilman; Al Roberts, Town Attorney; Joe
Incoronato, Councilman; June Visconti,
Councilperson; Ray Arnold, our Planner; our Town --
Clerk, Elaine Snowden, and her Deputy, Glady Ruit.
All I know is that our secretaries name is Robin;
and I'm Connie Smith, Town Supervisor.
The first speaker will be Morton Marks.
MR. MARKS:'_ My name is Morton Marks. I have
been in the real estate business for over 25 years.
I'm the owner of property on Meyers Corners Road
and Route 9 which is the southeast corner. It is
approximately eight -tenths of an acre, and under
your proposed zoning you are proposing that it be
turned in to an office complex. Eight -tenths of an
acre certainly is not worthy of anything where you
could put up an office structure . I don't know how
many fast food operations you have in your town, I
don't think you have too many. My experience is
that I am the property manager and partner down at
-cl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
2
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 5
Merriton Park (Phonetic) by interstate 84 and Route
9, and we have put up five I.B.M. buildings
comprising about 360,000 feet that were leased to
I.B.M. I also have built the Commons in Fishkill,
the Commons at Cedar in Poughkeepsie, and in
addition to building the I.B.M. buildings I also
have built shopping centers up in Albany, and we
are -- I also have built Executive Square which is
on the southwest corner of Middlebush Road and
Route 9. I'm saying to you that eight -tenths of an
acre does not represent a suitable area to put up
an office structure, and I'm saying to you, I don't
think you have that many fast food operations
presently within the Town. I am presently
negotiating with a national fast food operation
that is extremely interested in that corner, and if
you go through with this proposed zoning change
they'll walk away from the site. If you do this
it's going to lessen the value of the property
tremendously, and I just want you to be aware of
that. Okay?
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Okay. Are you aware that
HO, which is highway office, under use in the
ordinance, that restaurant and other places serving
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 6
food and beverages are allowed? Are you aware of
that?
MR. MARKS: Yes, I'm aware of that, but I
think that eight -tenths of an acre does not present
an area that a restaurant would -chose to go in to.
A fast food operation would look extremely well
there, plus the fact it's a very valuable location
where it is right now.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Okay, but it says
restaurant or other, so I'm thinking, and Mr.
Parsons, would you say under highway office that
was allowed?
MR. PARSONS: No.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Are you asking us to leave
it as highway business?
MR. 14ARKS : Yes, I am.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Okay. Are you also --
okay. Are you also aware that highway business is
two acres and highway office is one acre?
MR. MARKS: Well, presently it is highway
business, one acre. That was under your proposed
zoning.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: But if we change the
zoning --
?- 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 7
MR. MARKS: Because of the acquisition by the
Department of Transportation, which we had over one
acre, it is now down to eight -tenths of an acre.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Okay. All right. I just
wanted to make you aware.
MR. MARKS: They acquired that piece of
property on Meyers Corners Road to widen the road,
so it took it from one acre down to eight -tenths of
an acre.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: I just wanted you to be
aware of the two differences.
MR. MARKS: I understand what you're saying.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
Todd Stall.
MR. STALL: Good evening. I think it would
be alot easier if I just come up as opposed to
yelling from the back. My name is Todd Stall and
I'm an attorney with the law firm of Hankin, Hanig,
Stall and Caplicki. We're attorneys in
Poughkeepsie, New York and I'm here tonight on
behalf of Poughkeepsie Nissan, and basically
referring to the changes in the zoning ordinances.
I'm going to refer specifically to the zoning
changes that were made to the zoning law effecting
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 8
car dealerships in the Town of Wappinger.
I believe that a review of the entire zoning
law, that some of the most drastic changes were
those that effect the car dealerships in the area,
and I believe that you'll see through some of my
comments, and my client is here with me also this
evening, that the changes that are proposed to this
particular district, I believe it was proposed
changes to section 446.812, is the new section
that's been added, deals primarily with not only
minimum lot size, but also more importantly, with
the density requirements as far as the number of
cars per acre that car dealer's will be allowed in
the future under this zoning proposal.
Just to bring you up-to-date, as far as my
client's status in the Town of Wappinger, the
owners of Poughkeepsie Nissan are substantial
property owners in the Town, and especially up
along this Route 9 corridor. They own -- Their
existing, or their original dealership, was located
actually next door to what is now Greer Toyota.
That's an existing one acre parcel. They have a
parcel of land which is about 4.6 acres on the
north side of Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger.
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 9
They own the current parcel which is approximately,
I believe, 2.5 acres, and the Board may not
realize, but recently they purchased the Grossman's
property on Route 9 which comprises about 3.36
acres. So, the owners of Poughkeepsie Nissan are
quite substantial property owners in the Town of
Wappinger, and especially the new purchase of the
Grossman property which is contiguous to their
existing dealership was purchased on the basis of a
reliance on the existing zoning laws. The purchase
of that property, the purchase price that they paid
for that property was based on such reliance. The
effect of this new zoning law will greatly diminish
the value of that property. That was one of the
reasons for the purchase of it, was to expand their
present business, but even if they were not to
expand their existing business, the value of that
property would necessarily be diminished by the
five acre minimum lot size. A car dealer is,
basically under the new zoning law, is not going to
be able to sustain his business in today's economic
circumstances and to realize the full utilization
of his property for a car dealership under the
existing proposed rezoning. Many of you may know
L_
04
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 10
that a manufacturer requires that a certain
stocking level be maintained by car dealers. It's
not necessarily what the car dealer wants to
maintain as stocking levels, but the manufacturer
sometimes will impose minimum stocking levels on a
car dealer based on projected sales, past sales.
So, very often that car dealer is not, by himself,
able to determine that he can only maintain 20 cars
per acre or 30 cars per acre. I think that you'll
note all of the car dealerships currently in the
Town of Wappinger, more than likely have a density
of upwards of 50 to 75 to 80 cars per acre. Maybe
that's one of the reasons why you're proposing this
change, but it's a necessary density level to
maintain the business and to maintain the standard
of business, and to continue the employment that
they have been able to maintain up until this time.
Obviously inventory levels have to be
flexible. They're based on seasonal trends,
business climates, special promotions, etcetera.
The proposed zoning would make it impossible for a
dealer to make minimum requirements of a stock
level and thus effect the ability to maintain a
vital business in the Town of Wappinger. The five
C�?' /J
L_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- ���,LJLS r"', 11
acre lot size combined with the 20 acre property
requirement send the cost and expense of operating
a dealership basically out of sight for most
dealers. I don't believe that there are any car
dealerships in the Town of Wappinger currently that
have a five acre site. If you were to compute the
density requirement of 20 cars per acre, that
effectively computes out to a utilization of about
one-tenth of an acre for most car dealers. I
assume all of you understand what I mean by that,
that if you were to take the 20 cars that they're
allowed per acre, they could all fit in to
one-tenth of an acre. Really what you're saying
then is that nine -tenths of an acre must be
occupied either by a building, parking areas which
are for the benefit of employees or visitors, or
totally unusable, so that the 20 per acre minimum,
or maximum level you're rendering in a five acre
minimum per car dealership, you're really saying to
that dealer that you can keep a hundred cars on
five acres and about nine -tenths of the property is
going to be unusable, because what car dealership
is going to have a building that can support a five
acre plot.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 12
Obviously the cost of real estate, without
even going in to any other details, makes it
prohibitive for most car dealerships to purchase a
five acre site on purely the zoning or actually the
map in the Town of Wappinger. I don't know if
there are any five acre sites available for car
dealerships. New car dealerships that come in to
the area generally require of their franchisees,
licensees to have a minimum of two to three acres.
No other business under the proposed zoning law,
except for I saw one in there and that was a
minimum, a maximum number of beds for, I believe it
was health care facilities, but under no where else
in the zoning law did I see a similar type density
requirement imposed upon other businesses. I
didn't see it imposed upon lumber yards that they
can only maintain certain density requirements for
storage of materials. I didn't see it for pool
companies that they can only maintain a certain
percentage of square footage for display and
storage of pools. I didn't see it for landscaping
that they can only maintain a certain number of
bushes or trees or areas or percentage of land for
display of landscaping. It seems to effect mainly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 13
the car dealerships in the Town of Wappinger more
so than any other business.
One important item that I wanted to bring to
the attention of the Town of Wappinger, is the
benefits that they receive from the presence of the
car dealerships in the Town. My client,
Poughkeepsie Nissan, alone contributed more than
$800,000 in sales tax to the area. This was not
because he was only able to maintain 20 cars per
acre, but because he was able to maintain a density
almost four times that and he was able to move that
type of volume which was mandated by the demand in
the area. The current zoning would eliminate any
further dealerships and would have the effect of
forcing existing dealers out, creating loss of jobs
and revenues.
It is our opinion that the Town is in essence
condemning my client's properties for purposes of a
supposed rezoning and is being unrealistic and
dictating to car dealers how his business should be
conducted. There's no question a car dealer cannot
survive under these proposed zoning. Regulations
in the past have been imposed upon car dealers in
the form of architectural design, landscaping
9-/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 14
design. That, obviously, we have no objection to.
That's one viable means of trying to regulate and
control the aesthetics or the way that the car
dealerships are perceived by the public going up
and down Route 9. The density requirement, the
minimum lot size requirements are just not
realistic. In my opinion you're really forcing all
the car dealerships, in the event that this density
requirement is retroactive, in to a posture of
having no alternative but to seek regress through
the court system in order to.save their businesses,
because car dealerships that you have on Route 9
are substantial buying dealers, 20 cars per acre is
just not going to make it in today's environment.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Mr. Stall, you didn't tell
us what you wanted, what you were looking for. You
just don't want what we're saying.
MR. STAHL: What I'm looking for is obviously
two things. The density requirement to be increased
to a more realistic level of preferably 75 cars per
acre, which is less than what currently is the case
with most car dealerships, and I think it's a nice
median ground that could be reached between the car
'1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 15
dealers and the Town. 20 just will not make it.
Also, the minimum lot size of 5 acres is just not
realistic, I believe, in today's real estate
market, the values of real estate, for the
requirements of a car dealership, I don't think
imposing a 5 acre minimum is going to help the
aesthetics of a car dealership, nor will it create
any less impact upon the environment. Car
manufacturers have imposed their own requirements
on minimum lot size, which is generally two to
three acres. I think that's a more reasonable
standard to impose as opposed to the five acre
minimum.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Okay. Martin Leskow:
MR. LESKOW: 'I hope I'm heard by everybody,
including myself. Hello. Is this better? I came
here in relationship to a piece of property that
adjoins me and it was rezoned for some reason from
a residential-- rezoned from residential to hamlet
mixed use. Now, this property has alot of water
all the time that I consider that wetlands, and it
flooded in 1955. The water was there from 18 feet
from the road. So, now they're starting to fill in
this here property with all kinds of garbage,
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 16
cement slabs, gravel and whatnot, and of course, I
have spoken to Mr. Levenson, he's going to come out
to see it tomorrow.
Now, the reason I wouldn't want to see this
zone changed is because the person who bought it,
it was zoned in the residential district, now, if
the change takes place he wants to put up a shop to
make repairs for slot machines and probably pinball
machines and such things like that. Once you have
money connected in the place of business, I'm sure
there's going to be a lot of break-ins, and then
the State Troopers are going to come very often to
my house bothering me, did I see anybody, did I
hear of anybody, did I notice anybody, and this is
a criteria that I wouldn't like to see, and my
adjoining neighbor on the other side who has bought
the place, his name is Mr. Jenson, and he bought
the place from Doctor Scatterpin (Phonetic), and he
has definitely a farm area because he has horses,
goats, sheep.. I'm sure he wouldn't like to see
some kind of a business like that. I thank you.
SUPERVISOR SMITH:-':. Thank- youVictor Oweri.
ld'R": OWEN+: My name is Victor Owen, and I own
a piece of property just off of Route 9. My
9 -ice
IM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 17
address is Old Post Road. I'm not actually on
Route 9. They want to change me to highway design
from highway business, and I'd like to oppose that
change. The way this highway design is worded, it
says it discourages automotive uses and encourages
office use. I think this is going to devalue my
land. I think my land is more suited for
automotive type uses. I don't quite understand
what they mean by discourage and encourage. Does
this mean you can't do it and you can do it, or --
and also it says that this highway design is
similar to highway office. Now, exactly what do
they mean by similar to highway office? The same
thing or, you know, what are the differences there?
Everything down there is highway business, and the
only one that they're going to change at this time
is just me. I'm the only one that's going to
undergo a change right now. Everything down there
around me in the area is pretty much automotive
related. I have the body shop right next door to
me, dealership next to me, dealership across the
street. I'm across from the Accura dealer on Old
Post Road. I guess that's pretty much just what I
wanted to say, except everyone around me is
l- / 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 '
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 18
involved in automotive type things. I think that's
what the land is well suited for, and as I say, my
land is not actually on Route 9. I'm on Old Post
Road. Okay.
SUPERVISOR.SMITH: Thank you. Next Mario
Verna .
-MR. VERNA:'.I wish to comment on the proposed
zoning ordinance for the Town of Wappinger Falls.
I appreciate your earnest efforts in adjusting the
trend of understrained development in the Town of
Wappinger Falls, however much, much more could be
done.
The need exists for a more stringent zoning
ordinance as there is much to lose. First and
foremost is the loss of the rural character of the
town. Guaranteeing suburban sprawl, which is what
this ordinance continues to do, will make it more
difficult than it is today for people to grow up
and live in the Town. Secondly is the increase in
taxes that go along with increased development.
Numerous studies have shown that Town expenditures
exceed the income derived from property taxes of
new homes. This should be no surprise when you
realize that residential development means
9-i 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 19
increased expenditures in services such as road
maintenance, snow removal, police protection, water
and sewerage uses, school enrollment, land
management, social services, plus many more
expenditures I know I have missed.
In promoting development, we continue
destroying our environment. At a time when we need
to preserve for future generations a healthy world
to live in, we look for personal gratification.
More homes means more people using regular
household pollutants like furniture polish,
automobile waste, toilet cleaners, etcetera. More
homes will mean more people using fertilizers and
other pesticides to make their lawns look good.
These fertilizers are extremely hazardous. They
kill wildlife in a matter of hours after contact
has been made. All of these pollutants make their
way in to our aquifers and watersheds. In addition
to industry we are a major contributor to the
contamination of our streams, creeks and the Hudson
River. Maybe you find it acceptable to have to go
and buy water filters to purify drinking water from
the kitchen sink, but I don't. Your top priority
is health and safety of the town's residents. This
f -i 9
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 20
ordinance continues to give impetus to current
destructive practices.
There are a number of recommendations I would
like to make. They are not in any particular
order. The area along the Hudson River must be
preserved. You mention this in the ordinance, but
fail to mention how this is to be done or how much
should be preserved. The Hudson River Greenway
Council has proposed this land to be forever green.
We must work to fulfill this dream. Not only is
this an important area for migratory birds, but it
will also will provide recreational areas such as
nature trails, jogging trails, access by
non -motorized vehicles, and the like. These can
then be used to promote tourism in the town. Keep
in mind that wildlife, unlike humans, require a
certain amount of land to survive. Contiguous
undisturbed areas are essential to the survival of
wildlife, for example migratory waterfowl, birds of
prey, deer, etcetera. This must not be
compromised. With this in mind there are no
specific continuous areas set aside as wildlife
corridors.
In viewing of aerial photographs of Wappinger
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
M]
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 21
Falls I noticed we still have time to preserve
contiguous open space. Open space and wetlands,
not just those designated as protected by the
D.E.C, need to be preserved since they help
preserve the rural character of the Town. They
also help provide recreational areas throughout the
Town. The Town is remiss in its obligation to
provide required recreation areas for its
residents. These areas also help to promote the
survival of songbirds and other wildlife, like the
American Kestrel, which helps us by feeding on
rodents, mosquitos and other bugs that people find
to be a problem. Why not let nature manage itself
as it is capable of doing instead of us having to
use hazardous chemicals and pesticides. These
destructive practices not only cause health
problems, but they cost us tax dollars. Mother
Nature's work is free. All that is asked of us is
to set aside areas for her to do her work. The
zoning ordinance also makes no mention of
techniques such as transfer of development rights,
conservation easements, leasing of development
right, etcetera to help us preserve our land.
These techniques may also be beneficial to
9_a
0■
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 22
landowners who wish to reduce their taxes. To help
preserve open space why not have higher
density development in non-critical areas.
Adjacent areas could be preserved and affordable
housing can be created.
The Town Master Plan has listed lofty goals
that should be encompassed in the zoning ordinance.
These states of California and Washington, for
instance, have initiatives on the November 6th
ballot that, among other environmental concerns
restrict the amount and type of development that
presently occurs in those states. Wappinger Falls,
along with the rest of New York, needs to act with
similar bold convictions. The Town of Boulder,
Colorado has instigated a 2% yearly development
cap. We should have a similar cap to safeguard the
Town from suburban sprawl. This will allow us to
effectively manage growth in the town.
In a recent issue of the Southern Dutchess
News,a member of the town board stated that
developers should be given a green light to
continue with existing plans regardless of what the
new ordinance dictates. Grandfather clauses are to
be given to these developers. I say all developers
q- as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
HE
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 23
should abide by this ordinance and any additions
made to it starting on the day that it is passed.
The developers are still marking profits, I
wouldn't worry about them. It's obvious that the
residents of the town will ultimately have to pay
dearly in the years to come for shortsighted
visions of this type of thinking.
I ask you to not pass this ordinance and to
produce one that does not favor developers but one
that favors the preservation of the historic, rural
character of the Town so that all people can enjoy
life in the Town for many years to come. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: William Lenihan.
MR. LENIHAN:`:° My name is William Lenihan.
I'm the attorney for Florence Radice who's sitting
here in the middle. The gentleman to her right is
her property manager Gene Creighton, and the young
woman to the left is her daughter Jean Barbari.
We just found out about the proposed zoning,
and I assume in the case of R-40/80 there's an
upgrading from half -acre to two acre zoning.
That's the premise we're here this evening. Am I
correct in that?
g-23
I
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 24
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Yes.
MR. LENIHAN: The property in question is the
Hobbit Hill Farm which is partly in the Town of
Wappinger Falls, 29 acres, and 21 acres is located
in the Town of Fishkill, so obviously we have a
multiple property here. The plan that we have for
the farm or currently have for the farm is that
it's currently existing as a horse farm, a riding
academy, and the boarding of horses. Surrounding
the farm is four houses which have been currently
developed: We have an existing site plan here
which I will submit to the Board.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: I don't think it's proper
for us to accept a site plan.
MR. LENIHAN: I'm just saying I have an
existing site plan which I can submit for your
reference if you'd like to look at it giving you
the proposed use of the property.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Okay. I'm sorry. I
misunderstood.
MR. LENIHAN: We just happened to have this
in our files and then we heard about this proposed
upgrade of the zoning from half -acre to two acre.
Our plans were to keep the existing horse farm in
q-,2 V
1
2
3
4
�1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 25
the middle of the property, and sell in the future
surrounding lots to people who are primarily
interested in their-- in the sport of riding,
either they were interested or their children were
interested or they had some affinity for horses.
We feel that the two acre zoning, vis-a-vis our
property which is sparsely developed with those
four houses over there is extremely exclusionary
and limits the use of riding to only an upper
income stratosphere level of people whereas the
sport of riding should be permissible to all.
I£ the Board would like any further evidence
I'll be glad to submit it. As I said, we just
found out about this upgrade in the last few days.
We were never formally notified. Mrs. Radice
doesn't live in the Town.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Well, this has been going
on for three years.
MR. LENIHAN: Yes, I heard. Mrs. Radice is
the owner of the property, lives down state.
MR. ARNOLD: How do you spell that?
MR. LENIHAN: R -A -D -I -C -E. Any questions?
SUPERVISOR SMITH: No.
MR. LENIHAN: Thank you very much.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 26
SPECTATOR: Affordable riding, that's the
subject?
COUNCILMAN FANUELE: Mr. Lenihan, how old is
that site plan?
MRS. RADICE: Oh, about two weeks.
MR. LENIHAN: Fairly recently. We have
several others if you'd like to look at them.
Basically all the same. The same generic _
composition. We have several other plans over the
years where we tried to maximize the best use of
the property.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: We really would prefer
that you take it to the Planning Board. We're just
hearing comments tonight. Thank you very much.
Did you wish to speak?
MRS. RADICE: No.
:SUPERVISOR SMITH: Mike Hirkala.`a
SMR. HIRKALA: I don't think I need the mike.
Everybody hear me? For close to twenty years I
have been attending Town Board meetings, Planning
Board meetings and ZBA meetings, and recently I
have been put in a position where I wasn't working
locally so I couldn't attend these meetings and I
think that the past twenty years is justified by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
P]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 27
virtue of the fact that the last session I attended
with the Growth Management committee. I have a
piece of property on Route 9 between North
Fowlerhouse Road and South Fowlerhouse Road that is
presently zoned R-20, a small piece on Route 9 that
is zoned highway business, and my understanding was
it was going to be left as such, and right now it's
zoned R -2F which is a two family zone. An attempt
to make two family zones in this Town is admirable,
affordable housing is definitely needed. Where
it's going to go is another point. I don't know if
anybody took in to consideration the fact that the
development on Route 9 is creating closings in the
cross-over between north and south on Route 9, so
in the event that a development of, well, one
example is Mitsubishi property, if you leave from
North Fowlerhouse Road, when and if that property
is developed you're going to have to go southbound
to go northbound. This has been going on on Route
9 for quite sometime. The planners can definitely
say this because it's been done in the Planning
Board and yet here we sit with an attempt to
increase the density with no plan anywhere that
shows anything that's going to be done on Route 9
4-a7
I
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 28
as far as traffic is concerned. If you're going to
increase densities, put a road plan in the Town.
If you're going to increase densities, put them in
an area where there is a road structure that can
support it. If you don't have a road structure to
support it, then put it in a plan for future use,
and then put the high densities there. I'm not
saying that the densities shouldn't go where you
have it, but if the density should go on a four
acre piece of property that's there, then why
shouldn't the density go on all the other 50 homes
there too? Who arbitrarily drew the line that said
this backyard is not suited for two family but this
one is? I don't see that. That to me is spot zone
and it's ridiculous. There's no sewerage, no water
there. There probably won't be any sewers or water
for ten years or better depending on the national
economy. My particular feeling is to stick it and
put it down someplace where there is a sewer and
water district. Ketchamtown Road has a trailer
park. You make an R -2F on Route 9 with the trailer
park when Ketchamtown has a trailer park. Put it
there. There's sewer and water right down the
road. There's a lot of woods that's buildable.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10
11
12
13
14
L
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 29
Put two family there. There's a sewer plant right
down there. If you're going to put it someplace,
put it someplace where you have facilities to deal
with it. If you don't have the facilities to deal
with it and you intend to increase density
somewhere then put in place a plan to show that the
density should be increased, don't put it in the
zoning ordinance, put it on the Master Plan. Don't
tell somebody you can't build on that property
because you can't get sewer and water for those
densities. Leave it as it is. It was R-20/40.
Leave it that way. What's the big deal? It hasn't
been built on in twenty years and it's not going to
be built on for many, many years to come because
you don't have the sewer conditions to build on.
So why put us in a position where we have a two
family zone in our backyard that can't be built on?
It's going to devalue the, our property because now
we're next to a high density zone. We're R-20.
Make us R -2F too and let our septic systems fail
earlier than they will. Let our wells not
necessarily feed two families but let us put two
families in our houses if that's what it's going to
be. My property value will go up, no doubt about
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
G]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 30
that.
Another thing, another complaint I have, and
I know nothing is going to be done about it because
I complained about it at the Growth Management
Committee meeting, there's a piece of property on
All Angels Hill Road that came before the ZBA last
year or the year before I think it was, and the
people requested to put three or four homes, and
they requested a variance from the Zoning Board and
there was a requirement that there be 20 or 50 foot
of town road frontage for each house, each lot.
The variance was denied, they couldn't show
hardship. They have a house on the property. 3
and a half or 4 acres. Those people have since
sold to a commercial establishment and this
commercial establishment is right next door to the
said piece of property and that piece of property
now is to be zoned to suit the commercial property,
not the residential property. This is an obvious
thing when you look at the map, because the
commercial zone is a straight line, and now the
line takes in the residential property, and I'm
talking about the property next to B & B
Contracting on All Angels Hill Road. That piece of
'140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
L _
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 31
property was zoned residential for a long time, now
all of a sudden the straight line is drawn out,
down and back in again to take in that one
particular lot. There's no rhyme or reason for it
other than to have somebody get a benefit from it
who's commercial. That's another thing I'm
against. I think that's it. Thank you.
`SUPERVISOR SMITH Janet..Hirkala'
MRS. HIRKALA: I don't think I need the
microphone. My furor will carry my voice. I just
want to know when you change the zoning to R -2F,
why didn't you change our property to R -2F or
commercial. Let us make a killing on it.
cSUPERVISOR`SMITH: Gene Creighton. Eugene
Creighton. Okay -'-'Herb Wallace.'
MR". WALLACE: Herbert M. Wallace with the
firm of Wallace and Moore. I'm just appearing on
behalf of Cranberry Hills Development, and I just
want to note my appearance.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Duly noted.
Is there anyone.Telse; in the: audience who wishes: to
; speak- wh'o Pias note signed in?�
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Yes.
' MR`=S LEHIGH i Al Lehigh. I'd
just like to
y=3/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 32
make a couple of comments, and they're not
critical, so, I might be out of place here. I
would like to congratulate the Town Board and the
members that worked on this zoning ordinance. I
think it took alot of courage, it's been going
through the works at least four years that I know
of. I think they have done an excellent job, and
you can't please everybody, and I really think
there's a lot of citizens here that need to be
thanked, and I won't mention any names except of
the Town board. I really think you've done an
excellent job, and I think by the turnout tonight
in a hurricane, you've done a good job. Thank you.
(Audience applause)
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Thank you. The Town Board
did not do this plan alone. We had the Planning
Board, the Zoning Board, representatives from real
property, real estate -- no, not real property,
real estate agents, Chamber of Commerce and
builders, developers and citizens. We thank
everyone who helped us. We thank you all for
coming out in this bad weather. We'll certainly
take all your concerns and address them, and we
hope that we get this passed real soon. Thank you
`1.31Z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing- 33
here -..anyone else wished _to T=
very much. Was t
speak?
SMR_DEMARCO Hank Demarco. Congratulations.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: At this time I'll take a
motion to adjourn the public hearing.
COUNCILWOMAN VISCONTI: So moved.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Second?
COUNCILMAN VALDATI: I'll second.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry. Can we
change that to closing the public hearing, please?
Motion to close it?
COUNCILMAN INCORONATO: I'll move it.
MS. VISCONTI: Second it.
SUPERVISOR SMITH: All in favor?
COUNCILMAN VALDATI: Aye.
COUNCILMAN FANUELE: Aye.
COUNCILMAN INCORONATO: Aye.
COUNCILWOMAN VISCONTI: Aye.
(Whereupon the proceedings were concluded)
at 8:15 p.m.)
7 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing -
C -E -R -T -I -F -I -C -A -T -I -O -N
CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE
RECORD OF THE WITHIN PROCEEDINGS AS
TAKEN AND TRANSCRIBED BY ME.
Robin E. DiMichele
Senior Court Reporter
34
TLTSEC3F.EIS
Section 3
Comments, from the public, submitted in written form, during the
comment period.
Nine pieces of correspondence were received
One from Dutchess County Department of Planning
Eight from the public
They are included, have been cataloged as B-1, B-2, etc.,
and are summarized for clarity.
/4P
The following were received in written form during the comment period:
B-1. Dutchess County Department of Planning
THIS IS DISCUSSED IN SECTION 4
B-2. Wappinger Realty Associates (Morton Marks) Oct 18, 1990
Section 6157-02 Parcel 650897
Myers Corners Rd & Route 9
Objects to HO Zoning for his property
B-3. William H. Meyers, Oct 16, 1990,
Section 6158-04 Lots 546277; 550285 & 556293
New Hackensack Road & Route 9
Objects to HO Zoning for his property
B-4. Amenia Niessen, October 18, 1990
Section 6157-02 Parcel 715890
South side Myers Corners Road
Objects to COP Zoning of her property
B-5. Joel Hanig, Oct 15, 1990, representing Mario Leone
Section 6157-04 Parcel
Corner of Smithtown Road & Route 9
Inquiry of proposed zoning
B-6. Todd Stall Esq., October 19, 1990, representing Poughkeepsie Nissan
Section 6157-02 Parcel 607850
West side Route 9
Objects to standards & requirement for auto dealerships
B-7. George Lithco, Oct 18, 1990
Questions workability of HB (Highway Business) District bulk
regulations (Parking req vs. impervious surface limitation)
B-8. Victor & Jacqueline Owen, Oct 17, 1990
Section 6157-04 Parcel 649335
East side Route 9
Objects to HD (Highway Design) District fro his property
B-9. Thomas Perna, AVR Realty, October 22, 1990
Section 6157-04 Parcels 720225 & 743178
50 acres under powerline off Macfarlane Road
Desires residential zoning rather than COP zoning
DEPAFINENT of PLANNING
POGEF P AFELEY. AICP
cf .RS I -
EPIC M GILLERT. A1C►
A-S-1CO. S_r.
THE COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
LUCILLE P. PATMON. CouNTr EXECUTIVE
2T """ S1
Pny6w.I% Nt 12601
TIIf.—I 19141.6E 9681
Ea. (9 %4) 46s 9691
October 16, 1990
To: Town Board, Town of Wappinger
Re: Referral: 90-475, Proposed Amendments to the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance (Revision
received September 25, 1990)
The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed the
action cited above within the framework established under
General Municipal Law (Article 12B, Sections 239-1 and
239-m). That review consisted of an extensive analysis of
the recently adopted Town Comprehensive Plan, land use
policies set down in the county's comprehensive plan,
previous zoning proposals with county responses and the
current amendments. Upon completion of this review, the
Department finds:
The town is approaching the final stage in the revision of
its land use regulations. The recent revision of the Town
Comprehensive Plan and the proposed zoning amendments
represent a major step forward in updating the Town's
development standards. This presents both an opportunity
and a challenge to the community. There is the opportunity
to establish the ground rules for quality development over
the next five to ten years; there is also the challenge to
guide development in the context of retaining and enhancing
the community's quality of life and economic vitality.
Affordable Housina Options
The existing zoning ordinance allows accessory apartments,
ECHO units, conversions, and the renting of rooms in single
family residential zones. Planned Unit Developments and
Designed Multiple Use Developments are allowed in most areas
of the town. Mobile home parks are allowed subject to town
Board approval. These alternatives provide a variety of
housing opportunities for the community.
(1) The creation of an R2F Two -Family Residential Zone is a
positive step toward the creation of more affordable
housing options. This option allows four density units
per acre and could provide eight one -bedroom units per
acre. This zone has, however, only been mapped on two
small parcels in the Route 9 corridor, one of which is
12
Referral 90-475
Page 2
a developed mobile home park. Additional sites with
good access to a major transportation facility, with
planned central utilities and in close proximity to
existing community centers should be identified for
rezoning to this category.
(2) Many of the commercial zones have been expanded to
include residential uses located within the same
structure as the permitted commercial use. Zones
include Neighborhood Business, General Business,
Highway Business, Shopping Center, Highway Office,
Conservation Commercial and Conservation Office Park.
Further, the Hamlet Mixed Business Zone provides for a
number of affordable housing types. This type of mixed
land use which integrates commercial and residential
uses will provide opportunities for affordable units
near employment centers.
However, these options do not address the affordable housing
problem directly. Allowing one or two additional units on a
small percentage of lots in low density residential areas,
as permitted by some of these techniques, is not going to
have a major impact on the availability of housing for most
people. The large planned developments provided for in the
ordinance do not allow any significantly higher densities
than the underlying districts. There are no areas
designated for truly "high density" housing. The R-10
districts and the areas zoned for multi -family housing are
near their maximum capacity.
Directions: The Plan For Dutchess County encourages the
provision of a wide range of housing opportunities as an
essential element to balanced community growth and a
prerequisite to economic development (Policy 9). The town
plan recommends an Affordable Housing Floating Zone which
would allow density bonuses on approved sites if a certain
percentage of units are permanently restricted to affordable
housing. As the plan states, this would "help balance the
effects of imposing a one- or two -acre minimum lot size on
most of the town."
In addition, the densities allowed in the high density
districts are far below those possible with the provision of
central water and sewer. The provision of water and sewer
requires higher densities to avoid being cost -prohibitive.
13
Referral 90-475
Page 3
One option might be to enhance the PUD provisions with a
stronger affordable housing objective and specific per-
formance criteria, such as a requirement that a percentage
of the units are affordable as defined by a local ordinance.
In general, the town has to provide new opportunities for
affordable housing. Several opportunities could be realized
if additional land were zoned for more intensive residential
uses.
Commercial Districts
(1) A key element of planning along the Route 9 corridor is
preserving the traffic volume capacity of Route 9 as
development takes place.
The town should take steps now to ensure that new
development will not adversely affect traffic on Route
9. New state transportation policy states that NYSDOT
is only responsible for capacity improvements that are
attributable to "normal background growth." Traffic
that is the result of new development could be
considered excess, and the state could require a
"local" contribution in future capacity improvements.
Local is defined as non -state and could be town or
private funds. Protecting the capacity of highways
like Route 9 must be a cooperative effort, and the
town's best tools are its planning and zoning
regulations. If new development within the corridor
generates traffic that is considered excess, the town
may find itself having to contribute 25 percent or more
of the cost of needed highway improvements.
The county master plan, Directions outlines the
principles the county has adopted for land use
development in all parts of the county. Directions
encourages the concentration of commercial, office and
industrial uses within or directly adjacent to
established community centers such as Wappingers Falls.
The plan also advocates the elimination or containment
of commercial strips, and emphasizes the importance of
maintaining the through traffic function of major
roadways.
In addition to these general guidelines, Directions
also contains several policies that are applicable to
zoning and development within the Route 9 corridor.
Policy 8.12 explicitly identifies the need to maintain
Referral 90-475
Page 4
the function of Route 9 as a through road by
concentrating development, requiring service roads,
integrating transit service in new development, and
improving the overall aesthetics by adding landscaped
medians and buffers along the highway. Other land use,
transportation and site planning policies advocate the
establishment of deeper roadside commercial zones,
encourage the construction of continuous service roads,
and recommend strict limitation of curb cuts and access
drives on major roadways (policies 7.14, 8.6, and
14.18).
The focus of highway planning should be on permitted
land uses, the intensity of permitted uses and design
elements.
The proposed zoning amendments include several zoning
districts along the Route 9 corridor (HB, HO, HD, COP).
The HB, HO and HD districts provide for a range of
retail and personnel service uses that belong in
neighborhood and community centers. Inclusion of the
uses in the highway zones will only detract from the
goal of establishing strong neighborhood and community
centers, reduce the viability of the Neighborhood
Business zone, and reduce the land available for needed
and appropriate highway business uses.
The intensity of development is controlled by the lot
coverage and floor area ratio requirements. These
regulations can, and should, be used to fit the extent
of development to the traffic capacity of adjacent
roadways.
The individual standards for design elements in the
non-residential districts lack specific guidelines for
buffering, signs, and architectural compatibility.
These items are important because they will be the
biggest determinant of appearance and design of any new
development. The standards for buffering and signs are
too vague to be meaningful for the board or applicants.
Essentially the language states that these items must
meet Planning Board requirements.
Although this lack of specificity may give the board
some latitude in dealing with individual cases, it is
too broad. Future boards may decide that items such as
buffering, signs, and compatibility are of little or no
importance in the site plan review process. If these
items are of concern to the Town Board, more specific
standards are needed to provide a consistent guide for
future boards.
1S
Referral 90-475
Page 5
In some cases parcels are already developed for uses or
in a manner that would be considered non -conforming.
This should not be a deterrent to developing standards
that will permit the town to require improvements for
redevelopment proposals. As the, county grows there will
be more pressure to convert individual retail uses to
larger, more complex uses. The town should be prepared
to require site improvements on all redevelopment
activities. Again, without specific guidelines neither
the applicants nor the planning board will have
adequate guidance for determining what is acceptable in
the long term.
(2) It would appear that a portion of one of the town's
most significant natural resources, the Greenfly Swamp,
has been partially zoned for highway commercial uses.
Placing this natural resource in a commercial area
increases the development pressure; the zoning boundary
line for commerce use should be drawn to exclude
sensitive environmental areas. The commitment of such
a unique environmental resource to commercial uses is
contrary to the county and town plans and good land use
management policies and sets a precedent that endangers
all of the town's natural resources.
(3) The proposed zoning maintains a lengthy strip of
General Business uses along the south side of New
Hackensack Road extending from the intersection of
All Angels Road to the Cross Court Tennis Club. The
alignment of the county road in this area precludes
intensive development with numerous curb cuts.
Environmental Features
(1) The town plan delineates floodplain areas. Directions
supports the protection of natural resources (Policies
5.11, 5.14, 5.15 and 5.20). An Open Space Plan that
calls for the protection of floodplains, wetlands,
greenway corridors, and environmentally sensitive sites
is also included in the town plan. The current
proposed zoning map does not depict any of these
features.
If the town intends to protect its natural resources
through such measures as discouraging filling within
floodprone areas and prohibiting destruction of
wetlands, this intention should be made clear in the
zoning regulations and map so that landowners and
potential developers will not be misled.
Referral 90-475
Page 6
The town should add a floodplain protection overlay
zone to the zoning map. However, because the existing
floodplain regulations are based on the weak minimum
requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program,
merely mapping the floodplains will not provide
sufficient protection. The zoning should also be
revised to include stricter provisions that will treat
floodplains as physical development constraints rather
than merely as procedural hurdles.
Stream corridors and the wetlands that appear on the
NYSDEC freshwater wetlands maps should also be shown as
protected areas in an overlay zone.
(2) The statements of intent and regulations for
environmentally sensitive features should make it clear
that the actual boundaries of the features must be
determined during site plan or subdivision review and
may cover a larger area than that shown by the overlay
zones. The zoning regulations should also specify that
the town's review of impact on these features will be
in addition to (and may be more stringent than) any
review by federal or state agencies, and that project
designers should avoid encroaching on these areas.
(3) To protect wetlands too small to appear on the NYSDEC
maps, the Department suggests that the town either
commission an inventory of such wetlands so that they
can be added to a wetland protection overlay zone, or
note on the zoning map that such wetlands are also
protected even though they are not mapped. The
existing provisions for protecting the town's wetlands
should be strengthened, and the identity and role of
the Environmental Council named in Section 419.1 of the
existing zoning regulations made clear. (Does the
Environmental Council mean the Conservation Advisory
Council?)
(4) There are references to open space preserves and
minimum open space areas in both the proposed zoning
regulations and in those existing zones that the town
does not propose to change. However, little guidance
is offered as to how the open space systems in
subdivisions and site plans should be integrated into
an overall town greenway system.
The Department suggests that the zoning regulations
refer to the Open Space Plan that was adopted as part
of the town plan as a guide for landowners and
developers in designing open space systems. The
reference should clearly state that the open space
Referral 90-475
Page 7
plan does not identify all of the areas the town wants
protected, but rather shows the major spines of an open
space network that should be reflected in each new
development. The plan depicts the major open space
corridors and recreation areas proposed for the town,
and should be used to ensure that those corridors are
preserved as piecemeal development continues. Each
development site should be viewed as a link in the open
space system, and its design should be required to
demonstrate its connection to the larger landscape
network of the town.
Additional Comments
(1) The proposed amendments do not include any landscaping
guidelines or requirements. The quality of site
development depends, to a great extent, on the amount,
type and location of landscape elements. In addition
to guidelines, landscape/open space requirements can be
included as part of the bulk regulations for non-
residential districts (e.g., as a certain percentage of
the lot area).
(2) The minimum lot size for the Mixed Use District is two
acres; the minimum lot area in a Highway Design
District is five acres. Since all uses in the HD
District are subject to the requirements of the MU
District, it is unclear which minimum lot size
would apply.
(3) Re: Section 446.101.2
Does the term "...residential units..." refer to
density units or dwelling units?
(4) Re: Section 425.33
The term "...major road..." should be clarified to
correspond to the language used in the town plan.
(5) There is no intent statement for several zoning
districts. An intent or purpose statement should be
included for each zone. The information will help
applicants and future members of the town planning and
zoning boards understand the original intent of the
town board in establishing these particular zones.
(6) The front yard and setback requirements in all
non-residential zones will perpetuate the patterns of
front yard parking lots for all retail, office and
industrial sites. To retain and enhance the roadway
corridor viewshed, parking lots should be placed in
side or rear yards.
L
Referral 90-475
Page 8
(7) The last word of the second line of the intent
statement for the Conservation Commercial zone should
be "and" instead of "along" (Section 305.2).
(8) As part of the updating of its land use regulations,
the town should develop more explicit site plan and
subdivision standards that will dissuade developers
from encroaching on wetlands, floodplains, stream
corridors and steep slopes. Non-residential zoning
district provisions should be updated with requirements
for service roads, buffering, signs and compatibility
with existing development.
Recommendations
In view of the findings above, the Dutchess County
Department of Planning recommends that the proposed
amendments as submitted not be adopted until such time
as the following modifications are made and subjected to the
provisions of General Municipal Law:
(1) Additional sites for the Two -Family zone should be
mapped.
(2) Creation of an affordable housing floating zone or
amendment of the PUD district to allow at least a 20
percent density bonus for the provision of affordable
housing.
(3) Route 9 is the major north -south road in the town and in
western Dutchess County. The preservation of its
traffic volume capacity is important to the long term
economic vitality of the town and the county. The
proposed zoning amendments for the Route 9 corridor
include uses such as retail stores and shops; these
uses eat up the traffic capacity of a road because of
high turnover of traffic at each site. This Department
recommends that the town implement one or a combination
of the following alternatives:
(a) Delete retail business stores and shops and
personal service businesses as allowable uses in
the Highway Business (HB) district. Setting aside
this land for true highway business uses will
minimize the impact on traffic capacity.
(b) Permit a greater intensity of uses north of the
Route 9/Myers Corners Road intersection and lessen
the intensity of commercial uses along the Route 9
corridor south of this intersection. This can be
accomplished by a change of uses, as indicated in
(a), above, and/or by limiting lot coverage and
floor area ratios permitted south of this
intersection.
Referral 90-475
Page 9
(c) Replace significant areas of the intensive
commercial zoning districts along Route 9 with
residential or office districts.
(4) Elimination of those areas of Highway Business zoning
along the west side of Route 9 that affect the Greenfly
Swamp.
(5) Reduce the length of the General Business zone on the
south side of New Hackensack Road between All Angels
Hill Road and Jackson Road to minimize the impact on
the county road.
(6) The Town Board should add a floodplain, wetland, and
stream corridor protection overlay zone in order to
ensure that the town zoning map and regulations more
accurately reflect the natural resource protection
policies of the county and town plans.
(7) The requirements for service roads, buffering, signs
and compatibility in the HD zones should be clearly
defined in the zoning ordinance.
If the Board determines to act contrary to our
recommendation, the law requires that it do so by a majority
plus one of the full membership and that it notify us of the
reasons for its decision.
Roger P. Akeley
Commissioner of Planning
By
Richard Birch, AICP
Planning Supervisor
RB/tll
�D
�P
Wappinger Realty Associates
Executive Square, Suite G100, 66 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
(914) 298-0070
Fax # (914)298-1098
October 18, 1990 OCT ' b. go
Connie Smith, Supervisor
Town of Wappingers .....-+
Middlebush Road
Wappinger, NY 12590
Re: SE corner of Rt.9 & Myers Corners Rd.
Dear Supervisor:
The proposed zoning change for the SE corner of Rt. 9 and
Myers Corners Rd. from HB/1 to HO is ridiculous. The property
is eight tenths of an acre and is not suited for office space.
We own Executive Square where we have 31,000 square feet; which
is large enough for office space. This corner however is ideally
suited for a fast food restaurant.
We are presently negotiating with a National Fast Food Restaurant
and we are of the opinion that they will purchase this property.
This zoning change will undermine their confidence in the property.
We sincergly hop that you will see fit to change the proposed
zoning
this ubject property.
Sinc rl %j�jca
;or o I. Marks
Wa pinger Realty Associates
914•.e5•3100 �
MOO I
Thomas Al. Cervone
LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER
t
29S MAIN WALL
THE CAST IRON 13VILDING POVGNREEFSIE. NY 12601
P.O. Pox 654
Wappingers falls, N.Y.
Oct. 16, 1990
Connie Smith, Supervisor
Town Of Wappingers
Dear Ms. Smith:
I am the owner of the commercial property located on the Northern
corner at the intersection of New Hackensack Rd. & Rt. 9, This
property, along with a --mall cluster of other adjoining parcels,
is zoned General Business. Apparently, under the new zoning
proposed, these parcels would be changed to 190- Highway office.
I wish to submit an appeal that this section remain zoned General
Business. These parcels, which are less than one acre, have been
in use for many years. If these parcels become designated 110,
requiring one acre, they will become non -conforming. I feel this
could create an unnecessary potential problem for all concerned.
Your consideration of this appeal would be appreciated.
j�Very truly yours
William 1.1. Meyer V
OCT ] 7, qI
RECEIVED
OCT 2 2 1990
ELAINE SNOWDEN
OCT 2 2 03 TOWN CLERK
October 18, 1990
Town Board
Town of Wappinger
20 Middlebush Rd.
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
RE: Proposed Zoning Amendments
Dear Board Members:
I am the owner of approximately 21 acres of land on Myers
Corners Road to the immediate South of the Wappinger (Waldbaum)
Plaza. I am 78 years old, have been a life long resident of the
Town of Wappinger and this parcel of property has been in my
family for over 100 years. The property is presently Zoned
Shopping Center and is surrounded by properties presently Zoned
Shopping Center. The property is currently on the market and a
number of people have expressed an interest in the property.
However, it is my understanding that the proposed zoning
amendments will downgrade the zoning classification of my
property to Conservation Office Park. It is respectfully
submitted that at present, Southern Dutchess County, in general,
and the Town of Wappinger, in particular, has a surplus of office
space. To rezone this property to a zoning classification for
which there is no use is tantamount to making this property
unsellable at considerable personal expense to me.
This property is most suited for commercial retail
development consistent with other uses in the immediate vicinity.
The property use to the North (Wappinger Plaza), South (Alpine
Project) and West are all commercial in nature and the property
is approximately 100 feet from Route 9. The property is soon to
be sandwiched in between two shopping centers: The Wappinger
Plaza and the Alpine Shopping Center, thereby making my property
an island surrounded by incompatible restrictions.
~".
a3
Page Two
RE: Proposed zoning Amendments
October 18, 1990
In addition, I am informed that when one considers the size
of the property, the character of the area which surrounds the
property and the detriment I will suffer as a result of the
rezoning, the zoning amendment constitutes "spot zoning" and is
subject to invalidation by the courts. However, more importantly
this type of zoning is simply inconsistent with existing land
uses in the area.
It is my understanding that the Conservation Office Park
classification was designed to address sites that have "sensitive
environmental features". The Department of Environmental
Conservation has already designated a portion of my property as
low grade wetlands and I submit that the stringent DEC
regulations concerning wetlands will address any environmental
concerns. I submit that no further restrictions should be placed
on the property by the Town.
In sum, the rezoning of my land is confiscatory,
discriminatory, not in accordance with a comprehensive, well -
considered plan, and constitutes "spot zoning". I therefore
object to the proposed rezoning of my property from Shopping
Center to Conservation Office Park.
Sincerely,
Amenia R. Niess n
ARN:Ids
02
'Aa et- e -la".
JERARD S. NANKIN
JOEL D. HAMS
TODD S. STALL'
EDMUND V CAPLICKI. JR.
LEE DAVID KLEIN'
LEAN W. COMEN'
LYNN SMOOKLER
-MEMBER N.Y 6 CT. BARS
October 15, 1990
LEGAL ASSISTANTS
LISA PECCNIA'
KAREN VERONESI
SANDRA EDELMAN
MARY ANN WALSH
SALLY ANN SMUTS
NAIDA RODRIGU"
LAUREL JOHNSON
-PARALEGAL
Mr. Herbert Levinson
Zoning Administrator
Town of Wappinger
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Re: Mario Leone
TGN., 196157-04708045
Dear Mr. Levinson:
REPLY TO:
❑ EAST FISNKILI OFFICE:
JORESS
319 MAIN MALL REAR
1611 ROUTE 4
PO. 80X 911
SU 71,20 fj }n
N.Y. 17e02
c L� � NCTONjr.Y. 171537
1901.1471-7177
eOt =2
FAX 19141 471.010S
A% 19141 776.6449
❑ LUGRANGE OFFICE
LEXINGTON PARK
ROUTE $5. PO. 60x 15
L.GRANGEVILLE. N.V. 17540
19141 473.1700
FAX 19141473-1381
OCT 1 6. 90
This office represents Mario Leone who is the owner of a two acre parcel located on
Route 9 at Smithtown Road
This letter is to confirm our conversation of last week relating to the proposed rezoning
by the Town of Wappinger and your statement that the district in which my client's
property will be located is not the Highway Design (HD) District, but in fact it is in the
proposed Highway Office 1HC) District.
If this information is incorrect, I must know this immediately as my client was prepared
to speak against the rezoning of his property to HD if such was the case.
STALL & CAPLJCKI
once Smith Town Supervisor, Town of Wappinger
Snowden. Town Clerk. Town of Wappinger
X.
JERARD . HA KIN LEGAL ASSISTANTS -ESS REPLY TO: ❑ EAST FISHKILL OFFICE:
JOEL O- HANIG LISA PECCHIA- 919 MAIN MALL REAR 1871 ROUTE 62
TODD S. STALL* KAREN VERONESI PO. BOX 917 SUITE 213
EDMUND V. CAPLICXL JR. SANDRA EDELMAN POUGHKEEPSIE. N.Y. 12602 HOPEWELL JUNCTION. N.Y. 12539
MARY ANN WALSH 1914) 471.7177 1914) 221.2424
LEE DAVID KLEIN- SALLY ANN SHUTE FAX 19141471-0105 FAX 1914) 226•B549
LEAH W. COMEN- NAIDA RODRIGUEZ
LYNN SMOOKLER LAUREL JOHNSON ❑ L4GRANGE OFFICE:
LEXINGTON PARK
-MEMBER N.Y & CT BARS _�
-PARALEGAL ROUTE 56. PO. BOX 15
GEVILLE. N.Y. 12540
19141 4
18141 a79.1200
FAX 1914) 473.1361
October 19, 1990 i
Town of Wappingers OCT 2 1. 9�
Wappingers Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Ai1�v: Superutaor Cor'uiance 0. Srniih
RE. Proposed Rezoning Regulations Affecting Car Dealerships in Town of Wappingers
Dear Supervisor Smith
Last night I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of my client, Poughkeepsie Nissan,
regarding the proposed zoning changes affecting the numerous properties which they
currently own.
Urlfortunalety, neither my client nor any individuals in our office reside in the Town of
Wappingers and we were unable to attend any of the earlier public information
meetings regarding the subject. I apologize that these concerns have been brought up
at this late date, however. I believe the Town Board was made aware of the severe
impact these changes will have by our presentation last night.
The two (2) major concerns involve the fie (5) acre minimum lot size requirement, as
weU as the density requirement imposing a twenty (20) car per acre maximum
Nowhere along the Route 9 corridor is there a car dealership which possesses more
than five (5) acres. Additionally, I was unable to locate any car dealership that was
maintaining the per -acre density level being mandated by the proposed rezoning.
In order for a car dealership to survive in today's economic climate, not only is thefwe
(5) acre lot size uruealtstic and unnecessary, but more importantly, car dealers must
maintain a sufficient inventory to meet demand and to meet the obligations of their ever
increasing overhead
Based on the lot size and density requirements, car dealerships would be able to
maintain only one hundred (100) vehicles on a fwe (5) acre parcel. If you and the
other Board members were to review all of the existing car dealerships in Dutchess
County, you would see that for even the smallest dealership, this would create
economic havoc- A lot size of two (2) acres is more the norm for car dealerships in our
area and a density requirement of a minimum of seventy five (75) cars per acre is
mandated.
. t '
I appreciate the Board's attention to our presentation last night and am hopeful that
it will take our concerns under consideration prior to the implementation of the proposed
rezoning.
In the meantime, if there is any further information that you should request. do not or that you
to
feet would be helpful to a more informed determination, p
contact me directly.
Thank you for your cooperation
Sincerely,
fArr, STALL & CAPUCKi
7h S.L
TSS:cs
CC: Poughkeepsie Nissan
AM. Eric Hartmann
Polly
GAILEY
MARK A. KROHN-
ANTHONY G. AUSTRIA. JR.
JOHN C. CAPPELLO'••
GEORGE W. LITHCO•••.
PETER C. KOSTANT
JOHN G. PARRELL
MARK G. AS ERASTURI
DOUGLAS H. ZAMCLIS
•ALSO wD••�TT[O IM N,J.
••tbD .DaTT[D i«[t w.
• ••150 •O••�TT(O �. Cw.
'• '•t50 •D••ITT(D �w (T.
Re: Comment on Zoning Amendments
Town of Wappinger
Our File: 56648-01
Dear Supervisor Smith and Members of the Town Board:
We represent clients in the Town who own property that will be
located in the proposed Highway Business Zoning District. At their
request, we have examined the proposed amendments under
onsideration by the Board, and have identified an apparent
inconsistency that should be brought to your attention.
In general, the proposed bulk regulations for the HB Zoning
District seem to reflect a desire on the part of the Board to
enhance the productive use of land in this district. For instance,
the Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) is being increased from 35% to 40%,
and the required street frontage is being reduced to 150 feet. We
presume that the Board has determined that the commercially
valuable lands in the Highway Business District should be used to
best effect. Such a decision would benefit the Town's potential
tax base.
However, these amendments will also restrict the amount of
impervious surface on lots in the HB District. It appears that
these restrictions may have a substantial and unanticipated effect
when the parking requirements of this district are taken into
account. Consider the following analysis for a property owner with
a two acre lot (87,120 square feet) who wants to develop a retail
use on his property.
a. The building coverage regulation allows construction of a
building with 21,780 square feet of space.
b. The proposed FAR allows construction to increase to 34,848
square feet. Assuming a two story building for practical
purposes, lot coverage decreases to 19,424 square feet.
JACOBO� ITZ AND GLTBIFIL F
COUNSELORS AT LAM
GERALD H. JACOBOWITZ
158 ORANGE AVENUE
DAVID B. GUSITS
POST OFFICE BOX 367
JOHN H. THOMAS. JR.
WALDEN, NEW YORK 12586.0367
GERALD A. LENNON
_
P CTER R. CRIKSEN
914.778.2121
LINDA I. MADOfi
914.427.2101
HOWARD PROTTER
FAX: 914.778.5173
RONALD J. COHEN
DONALD G. NICHOL
LARRY WOLINSKY•
October 18, 1990
Hon. Constance 0.
Smith
Supervisor
Town of Wappinger
PO Box 324
Wappinger Falls,
NY 12590
Polly
GAILEY
MARK A. KROHN-
ANTHONY G. AUSTRIA. JR.
JOHN C. CAPPELLO'••
GEORGE W. LITHCO•••.
PETER C. KOSTANT
JOHN G. PARRELL
MARK G. AS ERASTURI
DOUGLAS H. ZAMCLIS
•ALSO wD••�TT[O IM N,J.
••tbD .DaTT[D i«[t w.
• ••150 •O••�TT(O �. Cw.
'• '•t50 •D••ITT(D �w (T.
Re: Comment on Zoning Amendments
Town of Wappinger
Our File: 56648-01
Dear Supervisor Smith and Members of the Town Board:
We represent clients in the Town who own property that will be
located in the proposed Highway Business Zoning District. At their
request, we have examined the proposed amendments under
onsideration by the Board, and have identified an apparent
inconsistency that should be brought to your attention.
In general, the proposed bulk regulations for the HB Zoning
District seem to reflect a desire on the part of the Board to
enhance the productive use of land in this district. For instance,
the Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) is being increased from 35% to 40%,
and the required street frontage is being reduced to 150 feet. We
presume that the Board has determined that the commercially
valuable lands in the Highway Business District should be used to
best effect. Such a decision would benefit the Town's potential
tax base.
However, these amendments will also restrict the amount of
impervious surface on lots in the HB District. It appears that
these restrictions may have a substantial and unanticipated effect
when the parking requirements of this district are taken into
account. Consider the following analysis for a property owner with
a two acre lot (87,120 square feet) who wants to develop a retail
use on his property.
a. The building coverage regulation allows construction of a
building with 21,780 square feet of space.
b. The proposed FAR allows construction to increase to 34,848
square feet. Assuming a two story building for practical
purposes, lot coverage decreases to 19,424 square feet.
Page 2
Letter, Hon. Constance O. Smith
Town of Wappinger
Zoning Amendments
our File: 56648-01
October 18, 1990
c. The parking requirements, however, call for one space for
every 150 feet of retail space.
d. 34,848 of retail space, although permitted by the proposed
FAR, would require 232 parking spaces.
e. Under Section'470 of the present code, each pair of spaces
requires 650 square feet, plus driveway area; with provision
for driveway area, this would mean about 400 square feet of
surface area per parking space.
f. 232 parking spaces requires 92,800 square feet.
g. Calculating in reverse, the effect is even more striking.
The maximum amount of impervious surface permitted on a 2 acre
lot is 65,340 square feet. The maximum amount of retail
space, with attendant parking, that could be then be provided
is approximately 20,632 square feet. This area is not only
far below that permitted by the FAR, but it is not even
equivalent to that now permitted under the present building
coverage requirement.
In effect, this restriction substantially eliminates the
purpose of the Floor Area Ratio, since the maximum amount of lot
coverage permitted will be determined as a function of the parking
area required for the use. It may be that the Town Board, after
due deliberation, will conclude that such results are what they
intend. If not, we respectfully suggest that the Board should
reconsider this measure, or at least consider an appropriate
alteration of the ratio of pervious to impervious surfaces in this
district, prior to adoption of the zoning amendments.
We thank you for your consideration of this issue.
Very Truly Yours,
moi—�
e ge) Lithco
cc: Members of the Town Board
Town Clerk
Mr. Raymond Arnold
Mr. a Airs. victor Owen
Old Post Road
Wappinger rills, New York 12590
October 17, 1000
Town Board of the Town of Wappinger
Town Hall
middlcbush Road
Wappinger Falls, New York: 12590
Dcar Town Supervisor and Council I.Icmbcrs:
We are the owners of property located on Old Route 9 in
the Town of Wappingers. This property is shown on the tax
map of the Town under Grid # 10-6157-04-G40335-00. The
property consists of ten acres of land with several old
buildings used primarily for residential purposes. The
property has approximately 500 feet of frontage on old Post
Road, which runs parallel to Route 9. In front of the
property, a very thin strip of state owned land separates old
Post Road from Route 9. The close proximity of the property
to Route 0 renders it suitable only for some type of business
or commercial use.
Under the zoning ordinance presently in effect, the
property is within a zone designated as 11D. Under the zoning
proposal presently before the Town, it is my understanding
that the zoning of my property will change to a new zone to
be known as I1D. Such rezoning will substantially limit the
potential for development of the property and will
substantially reduce its value. I believe that the re -zoning
of our property, in the context as proposed
by he ordinance
under consideration, Is arbitrary, unreasonable,
nd
discriminatory.
The stated purpose of the IID district is to."coordinate
planning and consolidate development of the properties
abu_ ttina Route 0 ...." Our property does not abut Route 9
and has been improperly placed in tills district.
�J
All properties immediately to the north and immediately
to the south of our property will retain the current 1I0
zoning. Thus those properties will still be usable for all
IID highway business purposes without the types of
limitations being imposed upon our Property. The fact that
all of these properties have access from the same road, which
Is a public highway other thnn Pout:e 0, indicates the
arbitrariness of singling out our parcel for different
treatment.
While our property may be the largest Parcel in the
area, the development of the property An .aUbsl:antially
restricted by one important practical reason: the absence of
municipal cciar_r and water. 1.7oct of the uses available to the
property would require the installation of a sewage disposal
facility, which could not, as a practical matter, be
constructed on the property.
Ove therefore respectfully request that our property be
zoned in a similar fashion to the properties which are
contiguous to it on the north and south, and that it remain
zoned 11D.
Thank you very much.
Vr y trul :rc,
icte>r ar�d Jacqueline Owen
AVR REALTY COMPANY • INVESTMENT BUILDERS • 733 Yonkers Avenue • Yonkers, New York 10704 • 9141965.3990
October 22, 1990
Ms. Constance Smith
Town Supervisor
RD 3
Route 376
Wappinger Falls, New York 12590
Re: McFarlane Road Route 9 Site
Town of Wappinger Falls
Dutchess County, New York
Dear Ms Smith:
We are the owners of approximately 50 acres of land in the
vicinity of McFarlane Road and Route 9 in the Town of
Wappinger Falls. We have owned the property for a number of
years and have prepared a number of plans for the development
of the property with residential housing.
The current zoning of the property is for highway business
and residential. The proposed zoning for the property is
C.O.P. Conservative Office Park. By a special use permit
residential development is permitted. The plans that we have
developed are subject to adequately complying with all
environmental laws including but not limited to adequate
drainage, sewers and wetland provisions.
We do not feel that there is a need, at this time or in this
century, for an additional office park on this site, but
rather we feel there is a dire need even in this market for
moderately priced housing.
Therefore, we are respectfully requesting that the zoning for
this property not be changed to Conservative Office Park but
rather to a residential zone which would allow us to develop
the much needed moderately priced housing, pursuant to the
attached plan.
If you should have any questions or wish any further
information relative to this matter I would be happy to meet
with you at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
AVR C
Thomas F. Perna
cc: Rudikoff & Rohde, Inc.
TLTSEC4F.EIS
Section 4
Comments & recommendations contained in the Letter from the Dutchess
County Department of Planning, responding under the provisions of
Sections 239-1 & 239-m of the General Municipal Law.
Comments have been cataloged as C-1, C-2, etc.
Formal recommendations are listed as R-1 through R-7
DCRESPNF.EIS
Response to Dutchess County Comment Letter (10/16/90) re: Zoning Amendments
The Board is in receipt of a letter from the DUTCHESS COUNTY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, dated October 16, 1990, referring to a review of the proposed
Amendments to the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, such review being
undertaken under the provisions of, and within the framework established under,
Article 12B, Sections 239-1 and 239-m, of the General Municipal Law.
The Planning Department's letter of comment contains three major concerns,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS; COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS & ENTVIRONZMENTAL FEATURES.
Additionally the letter contains some minor comments/technical corrections that
need to be discussed and/or corrected.
The letter also contains 7 major recommendations, and recommends "that the
proposed amendments as submitted not be adopted until such time as the following
modifications are made and subjected to the provisions of General Municipal Law"
The letter concludes with the statement "If the Board determines to act contrary
to our recommendation, the law requires that it do so by a majority plus one of
the full membership and that it notify us of the reason for its decision"
7t rr..P+ y ..•Nws
rzt• • ••tar• .mr
•n....• lo-.srat.
THE COUNTY OF DU -CHESS
Lv(..L[ F F•—.IN Coa..t• UltthoT
. . u.a
•.� F�•i •L' Yttl
October 16, 1950
To: Town Board, Town of Wacpinger
Re: Referral: SO -475, Proposed Amendments to the Town of
Y:appinger Zoning Ordinance (Revision
received Se;tember 25, 1550)
The Dutchess County Department of ?laming has reviewed the
action cited above within the framework established under
General Municipal Law (Article 12B, sections 239-1 and
239-m). That review consisted cf an extensive analysis of
the recently adopted Tewn Coz,prehersive ?!an, land use
policies set down in the county's comprehensive plan,
previous zoning proposals with county responses and the
current amendments. Jpcn completion of this review, the
Department finds:
The town is approaching the final stage in the revision of
its land use regulations. The recent revision of the Town
Com;reher.sive ?len and the ;reposed zoning amendments
represent a major step for-.•ard in updating the Town's
development standards. This ;resents both an c;portunity
and a challenge to the coaa:unity. ,`:ere is the opportunity
to establish the ground rules for quality develcpment over
the next five to ten years; there is also the challenge to
guide develcpment in the context of retaining and enhancing
the co.:.munity's quality of life and economic vitality.
Affordable Hcusina Cations
The existing zoning ordinance allows access -cry apartments,
ECHo units, conversions, and the renting of rooms in single
family residential zones. planned Unit Developments and
Designed Multiple Use Develcp-"erts are allowed in r-cst areas
of the town. ycbile home parks are allowed subject to town
Board approval. These alternatives provide a variety of
housing opportunities for the cc='znity.
(1) The creation of an R2F 7 o-Fami'_y Residential zone is a
positive step toward the creation of more affordable
housing options. :his option allows four density units
per acre and could provide eight one -bedroom units per
acre. This zone has, however, only been rapped on two
small parcels in the Route 9 corridor, one of which is
a developed mobile ho -me park. Additional sites with
good access to a major transportation facility,.with
planned central utilities and in close prexirity to
existing community centers should be identified for
rezoning to this category.
(2) Many of the cc-w:.ercial zones have been expanded to
include residential uses located within the sere
structure as the permitted cerx.ercial use. Zones
include Neighborhood = siness, General business,
HSghway Business, Shopping Center, Highway office,
Conservation Commercial and Conservation office park..
Further, the xamlet Mixed Business zone provides for a
number of affordable housing types. This type of mixed
land use which integrates cc-ercial and residential
uses will prcvide opportunities for affordable units
near employment centers.
However, these options do net address the affcrdab/e housing
problem directly. Allowing cne cr two additional •.:nits on a
small percentage of lets in lcw density residential areas,
as permitted by some of thesetechn! eues, is not going to
have a major -Impact cn the availability of housing for most
people. The large planned develc;merts provided fcr in the
ordinance do not allow any significantly hig.*.er densities
than the underlying districts. "here are no areas
designated for truly "high density" housing. The R-30
districts and the areas zoned fcr-.ulti-family housing are
rear their maximum capacity.
D{-eet+e^4 F@ Pia'! Fcr DutChE44 CGLLty enCGL'ragE3 the
prevision cf a wide range of housing cPrcrtunitiEs as an
essential e'_ea.ent to balanced cc- unity growth and a
prerequisite to economic develcprent (Policy 5). The town
plan recon. :ends an Af`_erdable Housing Floating zone which
would allow density bonuses cn approved sites if a certain
percentage of units are permanently restricted to affordable
housing. As the plan states, this would "help ba' --ante the
effects of !:..posing a cne- or two -acre minimum let size on
rest of the town."
In addition, the densities allowed in the high density
districts are far below these possible with the prevision of
central water and sewer. The provision of water and sewer
requires higher densities to avoid -being test-prchibitive.
One option might be to enhance the pUD provisions with a
stronger affordable housing Objective and specific per-
formance criteria, such as a requirement that a percentage
of the units are affordable as defined by a local ordinance.
In general, the town has to prcvide new opportunities for
affordable housing. Several opportunities could be realized
if additional land were zcned for more intensive residential
uses.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS
Responses to County Comments C-1 & C-2
R -2F District:
The Town Board recognizes the potential for increasing the supply of
moderate priced housing by utilizing the mapping of additional sites
for such use. It does however, also reserve its prerogative to
consider such actions in 'the future, and require specific site
environmental studies for such rezonings.
The Town Board has determined that it does not have the necessary
municipal services to accommodate additional "high density" housing.
DIRECTIONS provisions for housing:
It is the Town Board's perception that a fair share of "affordable
housing", both existing and potential, already exist within the town.
The proposed zoning does in fact implement the goals contained in
DIRECTIONS. Diverse opportunities are available within the range of
the proposed zoning pattern, with densities ranging from 2 acre
mini—estates to multi—family @ 5 units per acre.
Current market conditions appears to have reduced housing cost and
increased housing availability.
Additional sites, with access to transportation and adequate
infrastructure, are limited. The Board has determined that additional
"high density" housing is not feasible, at this time, due to the lack
of municipal services.
96
Commercial Districts
(1) A key element of planning along the Route 9 corridor is
preserving the traffic volume capacity of Route 9 as
development takes place.
The town should take steps now to ensure that new
development will not adversely affect traffic on Route
9. New state transportation policy states that HYSDOT
Is only responsible for capacity improvements that are
attributable to 'normal background growth." Traffic
that is the result of new development could be
considered excess, and the state could require a
"local" contribution in future Capacity improvements.
Local is defined as non -state and could be town or
private funds. Protecting the capacity of highways
like Route 9 must be a cooperative effort, and the
town's best tools are Sts planning and zoning
requlotions. If new development within the corridor
generates traffic that is considered excess, the town
may find itself having to contribute 25 percent or more
of the cost of needed highway impro%,ements.
The county raster plan, Directions outlines the
Principles the county has adopted for land use
development in all parts of the county. Directions
encourages the concentration of commercial, office and
Industrial uses within or directly adjacent to
established community centers such as Happingers Falls.
The plan also advocates the eliminatlon or containment
of commercial strips, and emphasizes the Importance of
maintaining the through traffic function of major
roadways.
In addition to these general guidelines, Directions
also contains several policies that are applicable to
zoning and development within the Route 9 corridor.
Policy 8.12 explicitly Identifies the need to maintain
the function of Route 9 as a through road by
concentrating development, requiring service roads,
Integrating transit service In new development, and
Improving the overall aesthetics by adding landscaped
medians and buffers along the highway. Other land use,
transportation and site planning po11c1e2 advocate the
establishment of deeper roadside commercial zones,
encourage the construction of continuous service roads,
and recommend strict limitation of curb cuts and access
driveson major roadways (policies 7.11, 8.6, and
14.18).
The focus of highway planning should be on permitted
land uses, the intensity of permitted uses and design
elements.
The proposed zoning amendments Include several zoning
districts along the Route 9 corridor (HB, H0, HD, COP).
The HB, NO and MD districts provide for a range of
retell and personnel service uses that belong In
netghborhood and community centers. Inclusion of the
uses in the highway zone■ will only detract from the
goal of esteblishing strong neighborhood and community
centers, reduce the viability of the Neighborhood
Business zone, and reduce the land available for needed
and appropriate highway business uses.
The intensity of development is controlled by the lot
coverage and floor arae ratlo requirements. These
regulations can, and should, be used to fit the extent
of development to the traffic capacity of adjacent
roadways.
The Individual standards for design elements in the
non-residentlal districts lack specific guidelines for
buffering, signs, and architectural compatibility.
These items are important because they will be the
biggest determinant of appearance and design of any new
development. The standards for buffering and signs are
too vague to be meaningful for the board or applicants.
Essentially the language states that these Items must
meet Planning Board requirements.
Although this lack of specificity may give the board
some latitude in dealing with Individual cases, It Is
too broad. Future boards may decide that Stems such as
buffering, signs, and compatibility are Oflittleor no
Importance in the site plan review process. If these
Stems are of concern to the Town Board, more specific
standards are needed to provide a consistent guide for
future boards.
In some cases parcels are already developed for uses cr
In a manner that would be considered non -conforming.
This should not be a deterrent to developing standards
that will permit the town to require Improvements for
redevelopment proposals. As the county grows there .111
be more pressure to convert Individual retail uses to
larger, more complex uses. The town should be prepared
to require site Improvements on all redevelopment
activities. Again, without specific guidelines neither
the applicants nor the planning board will have
Adequate guidance for determining whet is acceptable In
the long term.
C- 4
C - 5
G- 6
(2) It would appear that a portion of one of the town's
most significant natural resources, the Greenfly Swamp,
has been
partially zoned for highway commercial uses.
Placing this natural resource in a commercial area
Increases the development pressure! the zoning boundary
line for commerce use should be drawn to exclude
sensitive environmental areas. The commitment of such
a unique environmental resource to commercial uses Is
contrary to the county and town plans and good land use
management policies and sets a precedent that endangers
all of the town's natural resources.
(J) The proposed zoning maintains a lengthy strip of
General
^
Busloads Utes along the south side of New
H
Hackensack
ack Aoad extending from the Intersection
VX
of
All Angels Road to the Cross Court Tennis Club. The
alignment of the county road In this area precludes
Intensive development with numerous curb cuts.
87
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Responses to County Comments C-4; C -S; & C-6
Preserving Traffic Capacity
The reference to potential non -state (local) funding of State projects
because of increases above "normal background growth" is noted.
The Route 9 corridor, within the Town of Wappinger is both a local
service road and a through traffic road. It also contains a "natural"
service road (Old Route 9). The preservation of the traffic carrying
capacity is being strengthened by both the zoning plan and the
utilization of the service road (Old Route 9).
The zoning plan is not only based upon a desire to reduce traffic
impact, but also upon the existing land use, parcel ownership and
parcel size.
The zoning plan does focus on both maintaining traffic capacity (a
function of allowable density) and aesthetic improvements (a function
of site plan review)
The proposed zoning addresses the need to minimize the number of "curb
cuts" to Route 9 directly by requiring larger lots on most undeveloped
parcels, and encouraging consolidation of small parcels into larger
plots, with reduced access and increased density.
Range of Retail Use
The unique function of Route 9, for both local and through traffic,
and its location in relation to the Village of Wappingers Falls,
required an extended review of the propose use regulations for the
abutting lands.
A range of retail uses which belong in neighborhood centers do indeed
exist within the use regulations of the various zones mapped within
the Route 9 corridor. However such uses are also allowed in the NB &
GB Districts. It is not anticipated that including such uses in the
Highway Districts will detract from the establishment and/or
enhancement of local (neighborhood) commercial centers.
The zoning plan, including the range of uses allowed within the
various districts, was determined after much discussion and input from
all elements of the community including the public. The range of uses
is a consensus determined by the Board as a consequence of this public
deliberation.
Responses to County Comments C-4; C-5; & C-6 (cont.)
Intensity of Development
Along the Route 9 corridor, the following zones are mapped:
District Min Lot Area % Coverage F/A Area % Undeveloped
HB
2 ac
25
%
0.4
202.03
21 %
HO
1 ac
25
%
0.4
69.16
12 %
HD
5 ac
30
%
0.5
43.79
55 %
COP
10 ac
15
%
0.2
129.49
84 %
R -2F
16.42
30 %
SC
17.98
22 %
PI
9.0
0 %
The majority of parcels developed along the corridor remain mapped for
HB (Highway Business) in order to minimize the establishment of
non -conformity of both use & bulk regulations.
Total vacant lands within the corridor are calculated at 193 acres. Of
this total, 43 acres are zoned HB (Highway Business), 8 acres are HO
(Highway Office), 24 acres are HD (Highway Design) and 108 are COP
(Conservation Office Park).
This zoning plan was arrived at after a review of the existing (and
approved) uses and parcels within the corridor, and the desire to
minimize the establishment of non -conforming uses, or pockets of
unlike uses.
The Town Board felt constrained to eliminate the Retail uses in the HO
District, fearing a preponderance of Office Zoning would result in a
saturation of such uses within the Town. The Board opted instead to
eliminate new automotive uses which the Board feels can be more
deleterious to the visual environment of the corridor.
Additionally the Board has increased the allowable density within the
HD (Highway Design) District in return for an elimination of curb cuts
along the State Highway.
Development standards
Development standards will be addressed in future amendments to the
ordinance as noticed in the DEIS.
The Town does now require site review and improvements with
redevelopment activity of developed parcels.
2
Response to County Comment C-7
Commercial mapping Greenfly Swamp
This comment pertains to a small portion of the swamp located within
the property lines of an existing commercially developed parcel. The
Board followed the principle of locating zoning district boundaries
along existing property lines. The majority of lands constituting the
Greenfly Swamp are mapped R-80.
The Board anticipates no problem in this area, since any future
development proposal would be subject to a stringent environmental
review.
Response to County Comments C-8
GB Zoning along New Hackensack Road
The area in question is in the vicinity of the Dutchess County
Airport. Development of the area for commercial uses will reduce
commercial dependence upon Route 9, one of the County's goals.
Alignment plans will be reviewed when available.
//D
Environmental Feat res
(1) The town plan delineates floodplain areas. Directions
supports the protection of natural resources (Policies
5.11, 5.14, 5.15 and 5.20). F.n Open Space Plan that
calls for the protection of floodplains, wetlands,
greenway corridors, and environmentally sensitive sites
is also included in the town plan. The current
proposed zoning map does not depict any of these
features.
If the town intends to protect its natural resources
through such measures as discouraging filling within
floodpzcne areas and ;rchibiting destruction of
wetlands, this intention should be made clear in the
zoning regulations and map so that landowners and
potential developers will net be misled.
The town should add a floodplain protection overlay
,one to the zoning map. Hewever, because the existing
floodplain regulations are based on the weak minimum
requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program,
merely mapping the floodplains will not provide
sufficient protection. The zoning should also be
revised to include stricter provisions that will treat
floodplains as physical development constraints rather
than merely as procedural hurdles.
Stream corridors and the wetlands that appear on the
NYSDEC freshwater wetlands maps should also be shown as
protected areas in an overlay zone.
(2) The statements of intent and regulations for
environmentally sensitive features should make it clear
that the actual boundaries of the features, must be
determined during site plan or subdivision review and
may cover a larger area than that shown by the overlay
zones. The zoning regulations should also specify that
the town's review of impact on these features will be
In addition to (anal may be more stringent than) any
review by federal or state agencies, and that project
designers should avoid encroaching en these areas.
(3) To protect wetlands too small to ap;ear on the ICYSD£C
maps, the Department suggests that the town either
ccm ission an inventory of such wetlands so that they
can be added to a wetland ;rctecticn overlay zone, or
note on the zoning map that such wetlands are also
protected even though they are not mapped. The
existing previsions for protecting the town's wetlands
should be strengthened, and the identity and role of
the Environmental Council named in Section 419.1 of the
existing zoning regulations made clear. (Does the
Environmental Council mean the Conservation Advisory
Council?)
(4) There are references to open space preserves and
minimum open space areas in both the ;reposed zoning
regulations and in those existing zones that the town
does not propose to change: However, little guidance
is offered as to how the open space systems in
subdivisions and site plans should be integrated into
an overall town greenway system.
The Department suggests that the zoning regulations
refer to the Open Space Plan that was adopted as part
of the town plan as a guide for landowners and
developers in designing open space systems. The
reference should clearly state that the open space
plan does not identify all of the areas the town wants
protected, but rather shows the major spines of an open
space network that should be reflected in each new
development. The plan depicts the major open space
corridors and recreation areas proposed for the town,
and should be used to ensure that those corridors are
preserved as piecemeal devele;ment continues. Each
development site should be viewed as a link in the open
space system, and its design sheuld be required to
demonstrate its connection to the larger landscape
network of the town.
C - 9
C - -T o
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
Response to County Comment C-9, C-10, C-11, & C-12
(1) Floodplains (C-9)
(2) Statement of intent (C-10)
(3) Wetlands smaller than 12.4 acres (C-11)
& identity & role of Environmental Council
(4) Integration of open spaces into greenway system (C-12)'
The Board agrees that additional time and energy should be spent on
improving the environmental controls within the Town, and that such a
project should be undertaken. They also determined that the current
proposal can be put in place without such mapping at this time.
Additional Cor. eats
(1) The ;rcpesed amendments do not include any landscaping
guidelines or requirements. The quality of site
development depends, to a great extent, on the amount,
type and location of landscape elements. In addition
to guidelines, landscape/open space requirements can be
Included as part of the bulk regulations for non-
residential districts (e.g., as a certain percentage of
the Set area).
(2) The minimum lot size for the xixed Use District is two
acres; the minir•, m lot area in a Highway Design
District is five acres. Since all uses in the HD
District are subject to the-equirennents of the KJ
District, it is unclear which minimum lot size
would apply.
(3) Fe: Secticn 446.101.2
Does the tern residential nits...' refer to
density units cr dwelling units?
(4) re: Secticn 425.33
The term ..r..ajcr road... should be clarified to
correspond to the language used in the town plan.
(5) There is no intent statement for several zoning
districts. An intent or purpose statement should be
included for each zone. The information will help
applicants and future members of the town planning and
zoning boards understand the original intent of the
town board in establishing these particular zones.
(6) The front yard and setback requirements in all
non-residential zones will perpetuate the patterns of
front yard parking lots for all retail, office and
industrial sites. To retain and enhance the roadway
corridor vlewshed, parking lots should be placed in
side cr rear yards.
(7) The last word cf the second line of the intent
statement for the Conservation Ccr^ercial zone should
be "and" instead of "along" (Section 305.2).
(E) As part of the updating of its land use regulations,
the town should develop more explicit site plan and
subdivision standards that will dissuade developers
from encroaching on wetlands, floodplains, stream
corridors and steep slopes. 1,on-residential zoning
district previsions should be updated with requirements
for service roads, buffering, signs and compatibility
with existing development.
4113
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The following comments are offered in response to:
(1) Landscape guidelines missing
Landscaping guidelines are contained in Section 473.3 of the
Ordinance, as well as in the bulk regulation tables. This section is
to be reviewed as part of the ongoing review of all the Town
Regulations.
(2) Minimum lot size MU (2 ac) vs HD (5 ac); which controls?
This comment is due to a typo error in the Local Law as printed.
Minimum lot size in MU District is 2 acre.
(3) Re: Section 446.101.2; density units or dwelling units?
Intent is to use density units — future amendment will make this
clearer.
(4) Re: Section 425.33: major road (as defined in Comprehensive Plan) _ ?
This section will be reviewed with the comment in mind.
(5) Intent statement for all districts
Intent statements will be developed for all districts and will be
included in future amendments.
(6) Front yard setbacks in all districts
Current practice is to attempt to locate parking to the side or rear.
This comment will be reviewed in future amendments.
(7) Conservation Commercial Zone Section 305.2 — change "along" to "and"
This typo correction will be made.
(8) Need upgraded regulation for site plans & subdivision review.
The process to review 6 revise these regulation is currently underway.
- V
Rec ommend at! ens
In view of the findings above, the D_:chess County
Department of planning reccr.:nends that the proposed
amendments as submitted not be adopted until such time
as the following modifications are rade and subjected to the
provisions of General Municipal Law:
(1) Additional sites for the T-wo-Tam.ily zone should be
mapped.
(2) Creation of an affordable housing floating zone or
amendment of the PUD district to allow at least a 20
percent density bonus for the provision of affordable
housing.
(3) Route 9 is the major north -south =cad In the town and in
western Dutchess County. The preservation of its
traffic volume capacity is ir..portant to the long term
economic vitality of the town and the county. The
proposed zoning amendments for the Route 9 corridor
include uses such as retail ste=es and shops; these
uses eat up the traffic capacity of a road because Of
high turnover of traffic at each site. This Department
recommends that the town !r..plemEnt 0,-,e. or a combination
of the following alternative_:
(a) Delete retail business stores and shops and
personal service businesses as allowable uses in
the r!ghway Business (•r.E) district. Setting aside
this lard for true highway business uses will
minir.ize the impact on traffic Capacity.
(b) permit a greater intensity of uses north of the
Route 9/M.1•ers Corners Road intersection and lessen
the intensity of commercial uses along the Route 9
corridor scuth of this intersection. This can be
accomplished by a change of uses, as indicated in
(a), above, and/or by limiting let coverage and
floor area ratios permitted south of this
intersection.
(c) Replace significant areas of the intensive
cc-a,erc!al zoning districts along Rc:te 9 with
resident!al or office districts.
(4) Elimination of these areas of Highway Business zoning
along the west side of Route 9 that affect the Greenfly
Swamp.
(5) Reduce the length of the General Business zone on the
south side of 1:ew xackensack Read between All Angels
Fill Read and :ackson Read to m!n!mize the impact on
the county read.
(6) The Town Board should add a floodplain, wetland, and
stream corridor pzctection overlay zone in order to
ensure that the town zoning map and regulations more
accurately reflect the natural resource protection
policies of the county and town plans.
(7) The requirements for service roads, buffering, signs
and compatibility in the x:) zones should be clearly
defined in the zoning czdinance.
If the Board deterr..!nes to act contrary to our
recommendaticn, the law requires that it do so by a majority
plus one of the full membership and that it notify us of the
reasons for its decision.
Roger P. Akeley
Commissioner of Planning
By
Richard Birch, A1C?
Planning Supervisor
RB/tll
R - 2
1R - 3
R- 4
R- 5
R- 6
,y 1
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Response to County Recommendations:
R-1 Map additional sites for two family
Response:
The Town Board recognizes the potential for increasing the supply of
moderate priced housing by mapping additional sites for such use. It
does however, reserve its prerogative to consider such actions in the
future, in areas that are compatible with surrounding land uses, and
having adequate infrastructure. Such actions will require site
specific environmental studies for such rezonings.
R-2 Create affordable housing floating zone
Response:
The Town Board has determined, after review of current development
trends and feasibility studies for on-going water & sewer improvements
that additional "high density" housing is not feasible at this time
due to the lack of supporting infrastructure.
R-3 Implement one or more of following:
a. Delete retail business stores and shops and personal service
businesses in HB District
b. Increase intensity of use north of Myers Corners Rd & Route 9
& lessen intensity south of this intersection.
by doing a. and/or limiting % coverage & F/A
c. Replace significant area of commercial with residential or
office district.
Response:
Route 9 serves both local traffic and through traffic. Accordingly,
retail businesses were allowed to remain.
Within the Town of Wappinger, Old Route 9 serves as a natural feeder,
or service, road within a substantial portion of the corridor. As
such, it minimizes direct access to Route 9 thereby preserving its
traffic carrying capacity.
Total vacant lands within the corridor are calculated at 193 acres. Of
this total, 43 acres are zoned HB (Highway Business), 8 acres are HO
(Highway Office), 24 acres are HD (Highway Design) and 108 are COP
(Conservation Office Park).
This zoning plan was arrived at after a review of the existing (and
approved) uses within the corridor, and the desire to minimize the
establishment of non -conforming uses, or pockets of unlike uses.
The zoning plan minimizes the number of accesses to Route 9 by
requiring larger lot sizes on all existing large undeveloped land. The
plan encourages the combining of small adjacent parcels to one larger
parcel by offering a bonus in the amount of land that can be
developed with the elimination of individual curb cuts.
� ) I
R-4 Eliminate commercial zoning of Greenfly swamp
Response:
The majority of such lands are zoned R-80. This comment pertains to a
small portion of the swamp located within the property lines of an
existing commercially developed parcel. The Board followed the
principle of locating zoning district boundaries along existing
property lines, and has not increased the amount of commercial zoning
of the property.
R-5 Reduce length of Business zone along south side of New Hackensack Rd
between All Angels Hill Road & Jackson Road
Response:
This area is within the environs of the Dutchess County Airport, along
a County Road. It was the Board's intention to accept the County
Planning Departments recommendation by encouraging commercial
development out of the Route 9 corridor, therefore minimizing the
impact on the Traffic Carrying Capacity of the State Highway
The length of the business zone appears appropriate to the surrounding
development, including the airport area.
R-6 Add floodplain, wetland, and stream corridor protection overlay zones.
Response:
A Floodplain Overlay Zone exist5in Section 460 of the Ordinance.
The Board agrees that additional work will be done in this area. They
also determined that the current proposal can be put in place without
such mapping at this time.
R-7 Clearly define requirements for service roads, buffering, sign &
compatibility in the HD zone.
Response:
The Board has determined that adequate provisions exist within the
ordinance to accomplish the desired effect.
Landscaping guidelines are contained in Section 473.3 of the
Ordinance, as well as in the bulk regulation tables.
Site Plan requirements are contained in Section 450.
Special Permit uses requirements are contained in Section 430
Authority to issue such permits will reside with the Planning Board
477
TLTSEC5F.EIS
Section 5
Responses to comments received
The responses prepared in this FEIS have been referenced by the
appropriate numbers listed in sections 2 & 3.
ITj
A-1, B-2
A-2, B-6
A-4, B-8
RESPONSF.EIS
Response to comments
The property consists of 0.8 acres and is located at the S/E corner of
Myers Corners Road & Route 9. It was formerly developed and contains a
structure & a paved area. The present zoning is HB -1A, similar to the
properties at the 2 corners to the west. Lands to the east & south,
marginal in nature, are zoned SC (Shopping Center).
All properties in the HB-lA zone in the area are proposed for HO
(Highway Office), having a minimum lot size of 1 acre - no change from
the present minimum lot size. HO District however, excludes "Fast Food
Establishments", while allowing most types of retail uses and sit down
restaurants.
No change in the proposed zoning is recommended.
During the preparation of the proposed local law, this question of the
allowable density of stored vehicles and minimum lot size was
discussed. The Board considered raising the density to 40 vehicles per
acre, but rejected it at the time until additional studies could be
made.
The 5 acre minimum has been determined to be appropriate for this type
of use.
Mapping of the proposed districts along the Route 9 corridor was based
upon a number of factors:
a) Present use of land
b) Size of existing parcel
c) Location
d) Surrounding uses
e) Goals of Comprehensive Plan
The proposed zoning maps this parcel as HD (Highway Design) District
for the purpose of allowing a increase in density with a concomitant
decrease in road frontage curb cuts.
The parcel is included in the listing of parcels within the Route 9
corridor, that exceeded 5 acres in area.
The many uses allowed in the HD District are the same as allowed in the
HO District. Both districts were considered for this parcel. HB
(Highway Business) was not considered a usable option for this parcel.
A-6
The proposed zoning pattern along the Town of Fishkill border has been
set in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and is based upon soils,
topography, road access and availability of public water & public
sewers. Since the lands are outside the area served by central water &
central sewers, and in the absence of a definitive plan of construction
& finance of such services, the proposed zoning should be put in place.
A-7, A-9
The proposed zoning was based upon the fact that the parcel had easy
access to Route 9, abutted a commercial zone and was vacant.
It appeared appropriate for transitional zoning.
Development of this property will be subject to a site specific
environmental review.
A-8
Mapping of this lot was based upon both the ownership pattern and the
surrounding land use pattern.
The recommendation stands as shown.
A-3
Hamlet zoning was designed to allow a mix of uses within the hamlet
area. It generally follows an existing zoning pattern.
A-5
The Board intends to continue the review of its present regulations to
insure compatibility with planning, social, economic and environmental goals. It
does not feel* that it must hold up consideration of the proposed local law
until such other regulations are reviewed.
So
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-7
B-9
The parcels in question are currently zoned GB (General Business) which
requires a minimum lot of 15,000 SF. Two of the parcels in the
ownership in question are currently used as a single & a two-family
dwellings while the third is part of the."Use Car Factory" site. All
are located at the northeast corner of New Hackensack Road & Route 9.
Neither the existing GB Zoning nor the proposed HO (Highway Office)
zoning allows Automobile sales. Therefore the existing use will become
non -conforming, and will be limited in expansion possibilities.
This is not a +rea that should have multiple curb cuts (as could be
proposed under the GB zoning)
The original recommendations stand.
This parcel is known to have major environmental constraints,
particularly with respect to wetlands.
The purpose of the COP zone is to allow development within such
environmental constraints. The constraints themselves determine the
usable lands and therefore its value.
The property has no frontage along Route 9, therefore all access must
come from Myers Corners Road.
The property is indeed zoned HO, having a 1 acre minimum lot size.
The HB district, as do all districts, have a number of limits that are
not always mutually compatible. As in all zoning ordinances, the most
restricting limitation usually is the controlling factor in the
determination of allowable use.
No change is contemplated at this point
The parcel in question has indeed been discussed for different types
of uses, including both multi -family and Office Park use.
The Board has determine at this time to utilize the COP zoning, as one
alternative to development of this property.#