Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Untitled
i,T.~ z SL' Tilt:E NOTICE that the Town Board o r- the 20.vn. o r Wappinger will conduct a public hearing at 1•Jappinger Junior Nigh School:; CafEter.ia, Remsen Avenue, Wappingers Falls, New York, on Tuesday, June 26 th, 1979 at 7:00 P.M. EDST, to hear all persons cdlncerning an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning i•.ap of the To.•rn of Wappinger. The following Ordinance was introduced by Councilwoman Reilly vho mover its adoption: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance and i•lap of the To�dn of i•7appinger. BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger pursuant to Article 16, of the To m. Law, as follo%-7s : Section 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the To%::n of Wappinger, adopted January 29, 1963, and as amended from time to time is further amended to read in accordance with the amenfled Ordinance which is attachedhereto and made part her_:o = which� is incorporated in and made part of this Ordinance by refe_ence thf--reto. Section 2. The Zoning Map adopted January 29, 1963, as !mended from tilne to time is further amens ed in ac-cordance wit'n the attached map which is incorporated herein by reference thereto. Section 3. These amendments to the Zoning Ordinance o= the To,",,:, of ".1appinger and the Zoning i-.ap of the To�::p o= Wappinger shall be effective upon adoption, posting and publication as provided by �i�'a�•rn Lai:-. Councilwoman Mills Roll Call Vote: Supervisor Diehl Aye Councilwoman Reilly Aye Coancilman Jensen Aye Councilman Johnson A -)sent Councilwoman Mills Aye '.i',LLY. GARTLAND VU HAPi'LEYFA I IT 4i -A I I IU Ar'T)r*,; This Agreement made the day of September, 1979, between the TOWN OF WA10PINGER, Dutchess County, New York, and ECOLSCIENCES INC., of One Bank Street, Rockaway, New Jersey, SERVICES TO BE PERFOR11ED BY ECOL,SCIENCES, INC.: EcolSciences, Inc., shall prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the manner provided for the Environmental Conservation Law 8-0113, amended Septeriber, 1978 and Part 617.12, 617.14 and such additional regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation applicable thereto. On the subject of alternatives, as outlined in Part 617.14 (f) (5), EcolSciences will only consider "'No Action," and the proposed action. In general, primary and secondary impact analysis in this Draft EIS will be restricted to those elements of the zoning ordinance proposed for change. Such work is to be completed ,jithin 60 days of the cage of the agreement and the Town of Wappinger will be provided with five (5) copies of said statement. COMPENSATION: The TOWN OF WAPPINGER shall pay to ECOLSCIENCES, INC. for the services to be rendered a cost plus fired-ee contract, the total cost of which shall not exceed $1,593.00 in which a fixed profit of $266.00 is set, which payment shall be invoiced to the Town of Wappinger upon satisfactory completic— of said services. a1Tf�RNE�S ♦NU �ih`:f � ORS /l LlK _ _ T.1aRK(T ST R(.Cl top. 11601 ID1a) ♦tea• nT0 made within 30 days of the receipt e parties have set their hands and t above written. TOt N F WAP ING 6o BY: TOWN OF WAPPINGER CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNSEL BY: �"-��/ __�•" e ECOLSCIENCES, INC. STEPHEN M. SALAND ATTORNEY AT LAW 226 MILL STREET POUaHKEEPSIE. NEW YORK 12601 (914) 454-3860 April 17, 1979 RECE/VEA APR 2 p 1979 Town of Wappinger ELAINE N. SNOWDEN Town Board Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Dear Town Board Members: As you may be aware, I represent Dr. Mustafe Mozayeny, the owner of a thirty -acre parcel on Route 9D located north of the property commonly or generally known as Chelsea Ridge Apartments. Approximately twenty-two of those acres are presently zoned a combination of R20 and R40, being primarily the latter. You may recall during prior presentations to the Board with regard to my client's other eight acres, that reference was made to my client's desire to develop the remaining twenty- two acres for a residential use, preferably clustered. My client continues to desire to develop the premises in such a fashion; however, his engineering studies have shown that the cost of developing within the present zoning would be prohibitive - i.e., approximately $17,000 per lot for nineteen lots. I have enclosed for your review the information upon which those estimates have been based. Given the location of the parcel, as well as the economics involved, I believe one can appreciate the difficulty which my client would meet in attempting to market such lots. On behalf of my client, I would request that the Board, in the course of its deliberations of the proposed new zoning ordinance and map, give consideration to the possibility of re -zoning the twenty-two acres in question. To that end, I have enclosed a copy of a proposed R-10 development, as contained in the proposed new ordinance, as submitted by the office of Richard Barger, my client's engineer. STEPHEN M. SALAND ATTORNEY AT LAW 228 MILL STREET pouGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK 12001 (914) 454-8800 Town of Wappinger Town Board April 17 1979 Page 2 Neither my client, myself nor Mr. Barger's office have any desire to appear presumptuous. The purpose of our submission is to hopefully have the Board consider whether this proposal is one which they might find desirable in that particular location in the course of contemplating its actions with respect to the proposed new ordinance and map. The proposal is one which would, if found to have merit, call for the construction of approximately 100 units in a cluster -type development. The proposed development would certainly be consistent with the area and afford not only an excellent land use, but make for a both aesthetic and practical transi- tion between the residential and multi -family parcels surrounding it. Having briefly advised the Board of my client's interest with respect to this parcel, I would further inform the Board that my client and myself, as well as Ken Russ, would certainly make ourselves available to make a more detailed presentation as such time as the Board conducts a public hearing concerning the proposed new ordinance. very truly `yours, STEPHEN M. SALAND SMS:lpl Enclosures cc: Mr. Ken Russ L4 aj _' el, &446 SUPERVISOR LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPT. OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM P. HORTON TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE MILL STREET WAPPINGERS FALLS. N. Y. 12590 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN TOWN CLERK June 11, 1979 TOWN COUNCIL LEIF W. JENSEN NICHOLAS S. JOHNSOI BERNICE R. MILLS JANET M. REILLY TOWN OF EAST FISHKILL TOWN OF FISHKILL TOWN OF LAGRANGE TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE VILLAGE OF WAPPINGERS FALLS TOWN OF NEWBURGH --Marion S. ORANGE COUNTY LEGISLATURE Murphy, 20-26 Union Ave. wb CLERK, COUNT SS COUNTY --Louis Heimbach Extension Newburc COMM. DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTALTCONSERVATIpURE, Exec. Org, Cty Center, sh Wolf Rd. Albany NY N Main St. Goshen NY 10924 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Town Law, that a Public Hearing will beoheld by e of the Of the Town of Wappinger, on Tuesday,Y the Town Board EDST, at the Wappinger Junior High June 26th, 1979 at 7:00 Falls, New York q School, Remsen Avenue P.g Falls• on An Ordinance Amending Wappingers Zoning Map of the Town of Wa q the Zoning Ordinance and enclosed. PPinger, copy Of which is herewith All those persons interested are invited to attend said hearing. ELAINE H. SNOWDEN Town Clerk Town of Wappinger IAWkCHELSEA RIDGE m ASSOCIATES 1 CHELSEA RIDGE DR., WAPPINGERS FALLS, N. Y. 12590 (914) 831-4745 June 14, 1979 RECEIVED JUN 18 1979 Mr. Lou Diehl ELAINE H. SNOWDEN Supervisor Town of Wappingers Mill Street Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 Dear Lou: We wish to voice our concern that the proposed new zoning map for the Town of Wappingers has omitted our local business zone from the proposed map. As I had previously indicated to you on the phone, we have obtained a building permit for the construction of the Chelsea Ridge Mall and feel that in light of our long standing plans and efforts to bring this Mall into existence, that by causing it to become an immediate non -conforming use will work an undo hardship upon us and the businesses that our planning to locate in the Mall. If you recall, the creation of this local business zone originally was favorably recommended by both the County Planning Board and the Town of Wappingers Planning Board and, of course, the Town Board. I assume that this omission on the proposed zoning map will be amended to properly include our local business classification. Best personal regards, L. Richard Rosenberg cc: Leo Ritter LA KEON IAD REALTY C 0 . 654 Madison Avenue Suite 2020 New York, N.Y. 10021 Phone No. 212-371-3815 Ms. Elaine Snowden Town Clerk Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappinger's Falls, New York 12590 Dear Ms. Snowden: IfEEEIVED JUN 21 1979 RHINE H. SNOW®EN June 20, 1979 Re: Public Hearing- June 26, 1979: We are the owners of a parcel of land located in the Town of Wappingers, located at the end of Ervin Drive and front- ing Spook Hill Rd, known as Map 45, Block 1, Lot 2.1. The parcel consists of approximately 90 acres of vacant land. The present zoning of the parcel is one-half acre, residential. The proposed zoning for our parcel is one acre. .Appt+O,xiiia tely 5 years ago, a preliminary approval on this pro- perty was given to the developer (Lehigh Corp) for the sub -- division of the property. Because of financial difficulties, the developer did not ask for an extension of the preliminary approval. We intend to develop the parcel and to built single family homes. Water and sewer is at the property. To the best of our knowledge our parcel is the only one in this area zoned one-half acre. The cost of building new homes, especially the cost of land improvement, is very high, and the change of the zoning to one acre lots will be prohibitive to the development of this parcel. It will be financially unfeasible to build homes on one acre parcels. The cost of constructed home would be out of range of middle class persons. It is our opinion, that the interest of the community (especially for young couples looking to acquire residences) is to leave -1- otbr parcel at the present zoning, namely at one-half zoning. Further, the existing home owners are paying very high rates for Water and Sewer. The addition of new homes will substanti- ally lower the burden now carried by the home owners in this area. We are ready to immediately start the development of oup parcel if one-half acre zoning will remain. Please read this letter at the public hearing to be held on June 26, 1979. We would like to ask to make this letter part of the public hearing. We again would like to ask not to change the zoning, and to leave the parcel zoned as one-half acre. We remain, -2- Respectfully yours By- Nathan L.Spe is -Lakeoniad Realty Co. Li'L DARLING SHOPPE Imperial Plaza RecejvcD Wappingers Falls, N. Y. 12590 JUAl2 Fuor 219?9 Tel: 297-2550 H SN�wOFN June 22nd 1979 Elaine Snowden, Town Clerk Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Dear Mrs. Snowden, I would appreciate the following statement be read into the minutes at the town board meeting on zoning, slated for June 26th 1979. That I am in total concurrence with the recommendation of the planning board, in a letter dated June 19th, that all properties from Osborne Hill Road to Hopewell Road be zoned HB -1, commercial use. Thank you, Very trul yours, P flip Dominicus 26 Fulton Street Wappingers Fa11s,N.Y. 12590 TOWN OF FISHKILL 108 MAIN STREET FISHKILL. NEW YORK 12524 June 19, 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Subject: Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Town of Wappinger Revised April 1979 Gentlemen: The Town of Fishkill Planning ;Board together with the Fishkill Town Board has reviewed the subject April 1979 revision to your Town of Wappinger Proposed Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which you have forwarded to the Town of Fishkill. As stated in our comments of July 1, 1976 and June 26, 1975, regarding your March 1975 revision, we take exception to your proposed zoning along Route 9 from Myers Corners Road southward to the Fishkill Town line. The predominance of HB-lA and HB - 2A zoning will permit commercial strip zoning for practically the entire extent of Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger from Myers Corner Road southward. This is contrary to the Area Development Plan adopted by resolution on June 6, 1973 following three years of joint studies, hearings and expenditures by the five (5) communities of your Town, the Town of Fishkill, the Villages of Fishkill and Wappingers Falls, and the City of Beacon and known as The Southern Dutchess Joint Planning Group. The resolution was made by Mr. Steinhaus, then Chairman of your Planning Board, seconded by Mr. Muller, then Supervisor of the Town of Fishkill, and adopted unanimously by the representatives of the five municipalities present and involved. The so adopted Area Develop- ment Plan indicates high and medium density residential zoning along the above section of Route 9. Neighborhood Shopping, your NB zone, is indicated along Old Route 9 above its entrance into the Town of Fishkill. We wish our exceptions to be read at your public hearing on June 26, 1979 and made a part of the minutes thereof for consideration in amending your proposed Ordinance to more closely comply with the Area Development Plan and your Town Development Plan as it was adopted prior to June 1975• ron4a&C-erown,-rhairman fu11 subm' ed, C' RCB:eo Town of Fishkill Planning Board and Attachment the former Southern Dutchess Joint Planning Group cc: Dutchess County Dept. of Planning City of Beacon City of Beacon Planning Board Village of Wappingers Falls Board of Trustees Village of Wappingers Falls Planning Board Village of Fishkill Board of Trustees Village of Fishkill Planning Board Town of Wappinger Planning Board Fishkill Town Board r �r Ell THE . DUTCH DEP) 47 cx7r�-,,(_)n To: Town Board ry X MANNING raw york 12-601 485-9890 Referral: 79-139 Town of Wappinger Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance RECEIVED JUN 2 6 1979 ELAINE N. SNOWDEN In accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law (Article 12B, Sections 239-1 and 239-m), the Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed the pro- posed zoning revisions with regard to pertinent inter -community and countywide considerations. Upon analysis, this Department makes the following findings: 1. The proposed zoning ordinance is the result of an extensive planning program which provided a detailed analysis of the past and present structure of the Town and its future development potential. As a result of this program, the comprehensive master plan was updated and the Development Plan for the Town was adopted by the Town Planning Board. This Development Plan establishes sound guidelines for the growth of the community. 2. The land use patterns set forth in the Town Development Plan recommend a concentration of high and medium density residential uses around the Village and hamlet areas. Lands less suitable for development because of poor soils, steep slopes, or the lack of access to centers, are planned for lower resi- dential densities. 3. The proposed zoning implements the recommendations on residential development of the Development Plan. Lands between the Route 9 corridor and the Towns of LaGrange and East Fishkill are proposed for decreasing densities as the dis- tance from Wappingers Falls Village and Route 9 increases. Residential zoning between the Route 9 corridor and the Hudson River follow a similar pattern of concentrating densities around the Village and hamlet areas. 4. Several mechanisms are provided in the proposed zoning to enhance the character of development in the Town. The Average Density Subdivision and Conservation Subdivision generally allow a flexible pattern of residential development with no overall increase in density. The Planned Unit Development District en- courages a balanced combination of residential and non-residential uses. The proposed PUD zoning, however, does not stipulate the mix of uses nor is an open space and recreation requirement established. Page 2 5. The proposed commercial zoning differs substantially from the Development Plan. Areas along Routes 9 and 9D would provide a pattern of strip commer- cial development which is contrary to the intent of the Town Development Plan. Development along the Route 9 and 9D corridors has important county- wide and intermunicipal, as well as municipal, impacts. This type of strip commercial zoning weakens existing retail centers and creates hazardous traf- fic conditions along these major roads. The clustering of commercial activity holds down the use of the automobile for retail shopping and reduces the use and costs of energy. 6. The proposed commercial zoning in these areas is contrary to the Town Development Plan as well as Dutchess County's "Concept for Growth." The Development Plan recommends that 310 acres be set aside for commercial use. This could accommodate over 2,000,000 square feet of retail building space. Standards established for commercial activity indicate that the size and type of retail space provided for in the Town Development Plan could serve a popu- lation of several hundred thousand people. The excess of proposed commercially zoned land far exceeds this and would thus serve no useful purpose and have an adverse impact on the vitality of the existing economic base of the community. 7. The proposed permitted uses in the of commercial uses, some of which differentiated in order to include requirements. Recommendations Highway Business Zones include a variety are not highway oriented. Uses should be those businesses appropriate to locational In view of the above findings, the Dutchess County Department of Planning makes the following conclusions and recommendations: The residential zoning pattern generally relates to the land usage recommended in the Town Development Plan and Dutchess County's "Concept for Growth". This pattern establishes a concentration of high and medium density residential uses around the Village and hamlet areas. Lands less suitable for development because of poor soils and steep slopes are established for development at lower densities. The decision on these matters should be based upon local study of the facts. This Department recommends disapproval of the following proposed commercial zones: 1. The proposed Highway Business Zone (HB -2A) at the southwest corner of Route 9 and Old Hopewell Road and continuing along Route 9 to North Fowlerhouse Road; 2. The Highway Business Zone (HB -2A) on the northeast corner of the Intersection of Route 9 and Old Hopewell Road; 3. The Highway Business Zone (HB -2A) on the east side of Route 9 from McFarland Road continuing south to Old Route 9; 4. The Neighborhood Business Zone along both sides of Route 9D from the Montclair Apartments to Stoneykill Road. Page 3 This Department recommends that the Highway Business Zone on the east side of Route 9, north of New Hackensack Road be reduced with an established northerly boundary opposite Mesier Avenue. This Department further recommends that the permitted uses in the commercial dis- tricts be modified to include a difference in the uses allowed in the various commercial zones. The proposed uses in the Highway Business Zones permit various types of business development, whether or not they are highway oriented. Thus, the difference between the commercial districts is one of degree, rather than of substance. Commercial establishments along highways should be limited to those uses which are appropriate for highway business. The proposed zoning includes recreational use developments as a special permitted use in residential districts. In view of the broad definition of this use, it is recommended that more specific locational criteria be added to assist in the decision-making process. This Department recommends that "places of amusement or recreation" be disapproved as a special permitted use in the Airport Industry and Planned Industry Zones. While park and playground uses are appropriate throughout the Town, larger scale, intensive, commercial recreation activities should be con- centrated in or near areas planned for higher densities of population and along major traffic arteries for convenient access. This Department recommends that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development District be modified to include a regulated mix of residential and non-residen- tial uses within the PUD District; that is, the amount of non-residential space permitted should be specified and related to the number of residential units to be constructed. It is also recommended that an Open Space and Recreation require- ment be included for each Planned Unit Development. This Department recommends that the Planned Industry District located off All Angels Road, south of Lake Oniad, and the Planned Industry District on Myers Corners Road, opposite Fenmore Drive, be reduced to include only existing uses or disapproved. Industry and office research land uses would be more appropriately located on or near the Route 9 corridor which provides better access -- an important industrial location factor. It is recommended that the following clarifications and corrections be made in the text of the proposed ordinance. 1. In paragraph 411.5 and 411.6, the reference should read "Section 460" instead of "Section 445". 2. Paragraphs 434, 442.521 and 603 should be changed to more accurately reflect the wording of Section 239m of New York State Law as regards the review pro- cedures for the County Planning Department. The words "abuts" and "abutting" should be changed to "within 500 feet of." 3. In Section 421, column 2 (Permitted Principal Uses), a line should be drawn after #19 to differentiate the permitted uses in the R -MF -3 and R -MF -5 dis- tricts from the one family residence district uses. Page 4 The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base its decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or procedures enumerated in sub- ject zoning action. Dated: June 25, 1979 Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner Dutchess County Dept. of Planning By Richard BIrch Senior Planner M1EG'ICAM CORPORATION 40 Alrington Avenue Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 Town Board Town of Wappinger Wappinger Falls, New York Gentlemen: June 26, 1979 RE: Public Hearing 6/26/79 Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Megtam Property Old Route 9 & Cooper Road Wappinger Falls, New York Your records will indicate that this corporation owns a tract of land consisting of 186 Acres situated along the Southern edge of the Town bounded by Old Route a and Smithtown Road. Your records should further indicate that since 1975 we have sought to have this property properly zoned for the purpose of retaining the present usage of the property and continue to develop the property for its most productive use. For your information: From the day we have purchased the land to date there have been no complaints ever lodged against our use, or mis-use of the property. We respectfully call your attention to the fact that on July 23, 1975 your Board was asked to change the zoning to permit a lawful use by us of the property, this was granted. Originally we had asked that this land be zoned for Planned Industry but never as a one acre basis. We would now ask that this property be zoned GB. MEGTAM CORPORATION 40 Arlington Avenue Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 Town Board, Town of Wappinger (cont'd) Page 2 In our letter to you of February 263 1976 the following was stated: " Reference is also made to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance --revised; December 1975. This ordinance proposes to rezone the Megtam property to P.I.-2A. The effect of this is to permit any non-residential use as provided under O.R.-l0A for "Permitted Prinicpal Uses" and substantially restricts the "Permitted Accessory Uses" as compared to O.R.-10A. The history of the Megtam Property is outlined in our previous letter. In 1969 development of the industrial park was started and the first building constructed to accommodate a combination storage and warehouse business as well as a transportation terminal. The proposed rezoning would make such uses "non -conforming In order to avoid the restrictive "non -conforming" use category it would be necessary to add to "Permitted Principal Uses" --1. Transportation Terminals, 2. Storage and Warehouse Business. The "Permitted Accessory Uses would also be expanded to include items 3 thru 9 as provided under O.R.-l0A of the proposed zoning ordinance. We request that the zoning of the Megtam property be allowed to remain as it now is, prior to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, a Planned Industrial Zone. If this is not feasible the suggested changes mentioned above would accomplish almost the same objective." We have been advised that the zoning law at the present time is being construed most strictly. It is for this reason that we are making this application again in order that we can protect our vested rights in the property and continue to be a good neighbor and taxpayer. Very truly yours, MEGTAM CORPO ION l A ansen ARH:FS President ENC --Letter of 7/23/75 C.C. to Planning Board, Town of Wappinger MEGTAM CORPORATION 40 Arlington Avenue Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 July 23, 1975 Town Board Town of Wappinger Wappinger Falls, New York RE: Megtam Property Old Route 9 & Cooper Road Wappinger Falls, New York Gentlemen: It is the intent of this letter to present to your public body a request that the proposed rezoning of the Megtam property, be eliminated from the proposed zoning amendment, and that the property be allowed to remain zoned as Planned Industry. In December 1966, after considerable study of this property by the Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger and the Town Board, it was rezoned to Planned Industry by unanimous recommendation of the members of the Town Plannir_g Board, some of whom are still serving in a similar capacity, and by a 4 to 1 vote of the Town Board. The six reasons which were stated by the Planning Board in their correspondence of November 14th, 1966, to the Town Board, and the same reasons which were stated in the December 8th resolution of the Town Board, are as applicable today as they were 82 years ago. Copies of the aforementioned correspondence and resolutions are attached to this letter. The property was purchased immediately after the passage of the rezoning resolution and its development was started in the secure feeling that the tremendous financial expenditure involved in this development would be safeguarded by the integrity of the Town, and not set aside in what appears to be either an oversight or lack of understanding, on the part of the consultants who developed the proposed rezoning plan. The Megtam property constitutes what was left of the Schlicter Farm, after all of the individually saleable parcels were subdivided from it. Because of the elevation, and the spillover of water from the natural watercourses that circulate through this property, the area had remained largely inundated until the time of its purchase by Megtam Corporation. A considerable amount of money was expended in the period from 1967 until 1969, to contain the water which travelled through these watercourses and prevent the spillover in a manner that would make future building feasible. In 1969 development of the industrial park was started, and the first building was constructed, MEGTAM CORPORATION Town Board, Town of Wappinger (cont'd) July 23, 1975 Page 2 which is now occupied by International Business Machines Corporation. Plans were made for additional development. Unfortunately, Megtam Corporation and its potential customers for the land, were caught in the economic plight which has limited the scope of real estate development throughout the United States. It is still the hope of Megtam Corporation to see this property developed as a well built and operated land area to serve the industrial needs of the Town of Wappinger. Its location, which was one of the major reasons for its acquisition by Megtam Corporation, is eminently suited to such development. The resultant payroll and tax revenue which such development will generate, are part of the lifeblood of any community. Properly located tracts of land of large enough size, and with the proper transportation and highway patterns for industrial development are extremely limited. Such is not the case with residential tracts of land, which already exist in more than adequate supply to fully serve the housing needs of present and future residents of the Town of Wappinger. I urge you to confirm the integrity of the Town of Wappinger, and your understanding of the useful role which the continued development of the Megtam property as an industrial site will yield to the citizens of the Town, by deleting the proposed zoning change of the Megtam property to R-80, and allowing it to remain intact, as a Planned Industrial Zone. Very truly yours, MEGTAM CORPORATION 1 Archie. Hansen President ARH:FS E N C C.C. TO Planning Board, Town of Wappinger SFERATON ENTERPRISES, INC. 7 Darlene Drive Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12601 June 26, 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Town call- Mill St. Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 Dear Town Board Members: RECEIVE 7) JUN 2q,1979 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN Sheraton Enterprises, Inc* wishes to go on record supporting the Town of Wappinger Planning Boards recommendation,in their letter to the Town Board dated June 19, 1979, that both sides of Rte. 9 from Osborne Hill Rd. north to Fowler House Rd. be zoned HB -1 A. We would recommend that the suggested revision be included in the final adoption of the proposed zoning map for which a public hearing took place on June 26, 1979. Thank you. Very truly yours, J /y Sheldon Sabinsky President lY Sheraton Enterprises, Inc. owns a 5 acre parcel on the northwest corner of Rte. 9 and OsEorne Hill Rd,, SS: jat RECEIVED JUN 29 1979 ELAINE N. SHOW"' 1 } ROBERT'S MONTFORT ROAD RUNNING CREEK MOBILE PARK, INC. 297-9749 June 29, 1979 Wappinger Town board Mill Street Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 Dear Members, WAPPINGERS FALLS, N. Y. 12590 RECEIVED J UL 2 1979 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN I know many long hours have been spent on drafting the pro— proposed ordinance and in reading and thinking about it I also realize that it is an ordinance which will direct the future growth of our town with an eye toward order and fairness. We have been members of the local community for over 17 years and have in recent years attempted to enlarge our park on the 17+ acres which lie between the mobile home park and the Sprout Creek (map enclosed). The suggested change,which I have en— closed,would enable us to enlarge our existing park by the number of lots, which in the opinion of The Board, could be permitted under the requirements of the R-40 district in which our property is located. Your approval of this change in the proposed zoning would not, in our opinion, alter the direction or guidelines which this ordinance is attempting to establish nor would it create new mobile home sites in any existing mobile home park beyond the number of'single family units which would be permitted on the vacant land in that district. "Robert C. Rawls enclosures 2 d j EkL&Att\ j Pk 'ma0 P6 Page 1158 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Town of Wappingers suggested change. 443.11 Minimum Park Area A mobile home park shall have a minmum area of at least five (5) acres, except that existing mobile home parks shall be permitted to increase the number of sites with— out meeting the minimum acreage requirements for new parks. Any such expansion shall be considered as though the area being used for the expansion were a new park, that is the number of lots permitted shall not exceed the number of single family units, which in the opinion of the Town Board, could be permitted under the requirements of the residential zoning district in which the site is located. MORAN, SPIEGEL, PALMER, PERGAMENT 8 BROWN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT L: 272 MILL STREET P. O. BOX 831 POUGHKEEPSIE, N. Y. 12602 (914) 452-7400 EDMUND F. MILLER 11917-1970) RICHARD MICHAEL MORAN JOSEPH L. SPIEGEL ROBERT N. PALMER IRA A. PERGAMENT DONALD D. BROWN, JR. MARTIN C. PRINNER RAINA E. MAISSEL COUNSEL July 3, 1979 Councilman Nicholas S. Johnson Town Hall Town of Wappinger Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Councilwoman Janet Reilly Town Hall Town of Wappinger Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Re: Proposed Zoning Modification dated April, 1979 Dear Councilman Johnson and Councilwoman Reilly: BRANCH OFFICE 58 MAIN STREET FISHKILL, N. Y. 12524 (914) 896-8840 PLEASE REPLY TO FISHKILL E4�CI Sypw�f I am writing this letter as a followup to my appearance at the Public Hearing conducted relative to the above matter on June 26, 1979. As stated at that ti'_:'le I represent Dr. Henry and Mrs. Linda Huang, the new owners of the Sunset Knolls Trailer Park and Tourist Home. Their property is currently in a HB -1 Zone and pursuant to the zoning modi- fication, it will be placed in an OR -10A Zone. The particular OR -10A Zone within which the Huang parcel is located contains no parcel of property which encompasses an area of ten or more acres. The OR -10A Zone as proposed requires a minimum of ten acres before the property may be utilized for any of the uses per- mitted in that proposed zone. This would effectively foreclose not only the Huang's but any of the other property owners from utilizing their property. All present uses would be reduced to nonconforming uses and there would be the consequent restrictions on further development of these uses. Y -2- MORAN, SPIEGEL, PALMER, PERGAMENT 8 BROWN I believe that the recommendation of the Town of Wappinger Planning Board is to maintain the HB Zoning of this property. As a practical matter the HB Zoning would best suit the property within the zone and be of benefit to the property owners located within the zone and to the Town of Wappinger as a whole. I strongly urge that you and the Town Council revise the proposed zoning change, dated April. 1979, to include the property of Dr. and Yxx. Ruing. known as the Sunset Knolls Trailer Park and Tourist mega*. in an HB Zone. If you require any further information. 1ploa o a* not hesitate to ask. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. IAP/nj CC: Dr. and Mrs. Huang Very truly yours, �61 Ira A. Pergamew O-V-� Cf� GEORGE I. HALTER AND ANNA G. HALTER, HIS WIFE, ET AL VS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RALTIMORE COUNTY AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY ROBERT C. CHEEK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY LAW The Court has considered the testimony in the case, the arguments of counsel, and the opinions of the Zoning Commissioner and the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board apparently has a sound understanding of the guiding principles in this case. The restrictions imposed by the zoning regulations must be strictly construed. The Zoning regulations and restrictions of Baltimore County contain no provision that would prevent the erection of a structure such as contemplated by Mr. Cheek. As stated in the opinion of the Commissioners, the tower "is definitely not an accessory building as set forth under the definitions of Secti,4n 1, Page 3 of said regulations as codified September 1, 1948, and is, therefore, not limited to '15 feet in height above the ground level'." It appears to the Court that there is an eff,)rt on the part of the protestants to read into the zoning regulations an indefinite and variable standard of aesthetics or architectural good taste. The zoning regulations make no provision for any artistic or aesthetic code. For some years we have been beset on all sides by busy and persistent planners, whose purpose apparently is to plan for every conceivable human activity and regiment us from the cradle to the grave with the resultant destruciVon of freedom. Nothing, they say in effect, is to be left to individual choice or caprice and little or nothing to normal growth and development. However, as yet we have no high official arbiter of architecture or commissar of culture and it would be a tragic day for us, in my judgment, if we ever should have one. Some planning is necessary but the tendency today is to go to unreasonable extremes. cansidered that windmills added charm to the lowland scenery. The same is true of the covered bridges, red barns, and old mills and silos of America; once scorned as examples of raw New World construction, today they are con- sidered quaint and furnish inspiration to many native modern artists. Perhaps a future generation of painters will delight in depicting the steel towers and aerials which many of us today regard as fantastic and incongruous. 11 Although much violence has been done to the old conception of the inalienable constitutional rights of liberty and property, our courts have consistently ruled that zoning acts and ordinances passed under them are valid and constitutional only when the public health,'morals, safety or welfare are concerned. Judge Hammond, in Wakefield v. Kraft, 96 Atl. 2nd page 29, refer- ring to the case of Chayte v. Maryland Jockey Club, 179 Ivid. 390, said: "Restrictions can be imposed on private property only- when nly..when justified for the protection of the public health, morals, safety or welfare. The Court restricted the application of the rule, saying: 'We have been cited no case applying this principle to a situation of rezon- ing from a higher to a lower class. In order to impose restrictions some valid exercise of the police power must be proven. But such power is invoked fcr the protection of the property restricted and not to give protection to the surrounding property. It is basic to the law of property that a man shall be allowed the widest use of his property consonant with the protec- tion of his neighbors. In order to justify therefore a restriction of that use, it must be shown that such re- striction is in some manner related to the police power of the sovereign'." The public safety, health, morals or welfare will in no wise be affected by the erection of the tower among the trees in Mr. Cheek's back- yard. His home is still his castle within the narrow limits set by law as approved by the courts; The Court is of the opinion that the Board of Zoning Appeals made no error in its ruling and its finding is affirmed. March 23, 1954 John B. Gontrum, judge 6604-pw lc This material produced and distributed free of charge as a service to amateurs by the AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE, INC. Newington, Connecticut 06111 Printed in the U.S.A. ?ieasL rea� Fact e, tP o v� A SURVEY OF AMATEUR RADIO A ✓` /+tA By: W. Stuart Home This survey of amateur radio is written in an effort to give the layman sorne insight into the nature of the hobby, the kind of equipment used, the methods of operation, all in a fairly nontechnical vein. THE NATURE OF AMATEUR RADIO Basically, radio amateurs, called "hams," are interested in communication by means of radio transmission and reception of signals. The signals may be of various types: the oldest form is by Morse Code telegraphy, commonly referred to as CW. This is still the preferred means of communication by at Ieast a third of the hams active today. The next significant form of communication is by voice. Specialized techniques of voice transmission developed in the late 1950s, and these specialized techniques will be explained later. There are several other forms of communication, the two most popular of which are radio teletype (RTTY) and amateur television (ATV or SSTV). Harps are interested in communication. To achieve this, sorne simply get on the air and comrnunicate with whatever other hares they may happen to contact. Others specialize in communication techniques, such as using the moon as a reflector in order to achieve longer distances with certain frequencies that would otherwise not travel the distance obtained. In fact, hams first showed the way in using earth-rnoon-earth paths for communications. Other hams specialize in working only foreign countries, for which awards can be obtained. But the biggest group of hares fall into what is referred to as PILON: Public Interest, Convenience, Or Necessity. These are the hams dedicated to maintaining "nets" or networks of communications among a group of hams that may be located statewide or across the entire United States or in liason with some other country. In California there are probably two well-publicized nets. One of these is WESCARS, West Coast Amateur Radio Service. Its function is primarily (a) immediate routing of emergency and priority traffic, (b) assistance to travelers, and (c) provision for communications facilities for harns desiring to contact other persons, essentially in California, although the other western states are involved as well. The second group falls into what is known as MARS: Military Affiliate Radio Stations. These are harps who have affiliated themselves with a branch of the service and thereby are. permitted, by special license, to use frequencies outside the regular ham bands to communicate with military facilities overseas. The most common example of a MARS operation is the use of phone patches between service personnel in Europe and the United States. How does one become a ham? It looks hard at first but it isn't really. First, you must understand the licensing of ham radio operation is a function of the United States Government under the auspices of the Federal Communications Commission. It is the FCC that establishes all rules and regulations for the operations of all radio and TV transmissions, subject to, of course, international treaty. The FCC. has established certain classes of licenses, all of which require a knowledge of Morse Code and of general radio theory. The beginner's license, the Novice, requires ability to send and receive in Morse Code at the rate of five In this fashion, the ham can be assured of having sufficient power to enable him to engage in fairly reliable communications. The Antenna. Now we corne to what has to be the most controversial aspect of all ham operations: the antenna. Simply stated, the function of the antenna is to transfer those electrical impulses being 'enerated in the transmitter from the final amplifier to the air (or space), and radiate those pulses; the antenna also serves to couple the receiver to those transmitted pulses so that they can be demodulated. Because of the need of reliable communications usually over long distances, the antenna must efficiently perform. While it is true that any old piece of .:,ire may do the. job, it won't do it very well at al!. In fact, if the antenn-i is not properly designed to match the transmitter, it may actually cause a loss of signal (the common expression for a ham radiating a very poor signal is that he is usi.,g his rain gutter for an antenna). There are several features about antennas in general that should first be noted. All antennas today are designed to meet certain matching requirements to the transmitter. This matching requirement is one that best suits efficient power transfer from transmitter to antenna; this characteristic is usually referred to as impedance. The antenna actually operates as a kind of transformer, changing the electrical pulses in the transmitter to radiated energy. Another requirement is that length is a critical factor. To operate efficiently on each band, the antenna's length must be one-half the length for the particulate band; e.g., for the 80 meter band the antenna should be '+0 meters long, or approximately 132 feet. As the frequency goes up, the length decreases so that at the 20 meter band (the one most commonly used for telephone patches overseas), the element being fed energy (driven element) is 33 feet long. At the three toll bands, 20, 15 and 10 meters, the length is short enough that highly directional antennas can be used. A directional antenna is one which will tend to radiate substantially 90 percent of its energy in a given direction. If an antenna is this directional, then, of course, the reliability of communication is enhanced that much more. In addition, directionality also serves to eliminate the possibility of interference from another station that may be using the same frequency or one very close, thus permitting the operator to complete his communications in an unimpeded fashion. When a directional antenna is constructed, the typical variety is very much like the directional antennas one sees for FM use or for TV channels 2-13. Several elements are placed along a horizontal boom. The rear element, called the reflector, is the longest. It is then followed (in inverse order) by the driven element which has the electrical energy fed into it. Then corne two or more directors. Each of these decrease in size with the shortest being the one in front. The direction of radiation is from the driven element along the boom toward the directors (i.e., at right angles to the elements). Again, because we are dealing with fixed laws of science, not just any length of elements, boom, or spacing between elements will suffice. Usually, the spacing between elements is somewhere between 0.15 to 0.2 wavelengths. Thus, for 20 :peters, the spacing between elements becomes 13 feet to 16.5 feet. -5- BAND CHARACTERISTICS For the purpose of this paper, a discussion of general band characteristics will be limited to the general bands given previously. Above the410 meter band a whole new set .of principles come into play, and a discussion of the higher bands is not germane here. From 30,000 KHz and below (10 meters and lower), a radio wave emitted by an antenna travels upward and outward until it is bent backward by a layer of air, called the ionosphere, and the wave is then angled back to earth. This layer of atmosphere is approximately 60 miles above the surface of the earth. The longer wavelengths, 80 and 40 meters, consistently are bent by this layer of air. The shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) are not so consistently bent, and there are many times when the 20, 15 and 10 meter bands are not useable simply because they radiate on out into space without being bent back to earth. The properties of the ionosphere are in large part due to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. As a consequence, there will be both a daily variation and a seasonal variation. The bands all react differently to these changes in the reflecting layer or ionosphere. The 160 meter band offers reliable working ranges of only 25 miles during the day. On winter nights, ranges extend outward to distances of several thousand miles. The 80 meter band is somewhat similar. The maximum distance to be covered during daylight hours is approximately 200 miles but increases to several thousand rniles at night. During the winter, transoceanic contacts can be regularly relied upon; during summer months, operation on this band is difficult because of a high static level. The 40 meter band offers increased distances over the 80 meter band. Daytime stretches to 700 to 800 miles and the nighttime increases to clear around the world in the winter nights. For solid, reliable, long-distance corn munications, the 20 meter band is the workhorse of the bands. During the peak of the sunspot cycle, this band is virtually open to some part of the world 24 hours of every day. During the winter months and during a sunspot minimum, the band is most useful during daylight hours. The 15 meter band runs a close second for being a workhorse for long- distance corn munications. Particularly during daylight hours, this band when used with a good directional antenna as on 20 meters can open up a multitude of foreign countries. Incidentally, this is one of the four bands a Novice class license can use (the others are 80, 40 and 10 meters), and one most used by Novices for contacting foreign countries. The 10 meter band is an unusual band, This one band is extremely subject to the sunspot cycle. When there is a maximum number of sunspots (the maxima and minima occur in an 11 year cycle), this band is "wide open," but when a minimum cycle sets in, it is good only for limited distances, and generally, a signal will skip from one spot to another over distances of 1,000 miles or more without a great degree of predictable reliability. !s1 rederal C3r(iM'UnInfilop's Cormissin a 1919 M. Streat,11W. n WishiriVen, D.C. 20554 C� l 87276 LOCAL TA%S TWUTATL7G RADIO IMY B£ PFC--EK= July 29, 197 7 - B BY CGi'1 &NICATIONS ACT There has been. an increase in the number of in.;r=ies and ocmplaints re- ceived by the Ca -r.rission from n=dbers of the public conccrring state and local lz vs which deal with radio and television. For the most part, these calls ailed letters are relate to CD radio, and either ask whether a particular ard_inance is constitutional or ocuplain about enforcement of a state statute thought to br in conflict. with Commission regulations. Zhe purpose of this Public notice is to briefly exsrrina federal - state relations in this area, and ' to offer saare inforrration to 'C��missioii licensees 4.to feel they have encountered improper loccal regulation of electi-auc con-=Ucations . As early as 1912, Congress recognized that corrin nications by :moans of rad' o energy was inherently interstate in nature, was a form of camnarce, aryl was uniquely adaptable to uniform regulation by the federal government. 1/ 'ghee Padio Act of 1927, increased the f.«leral govermmnt's authority to regulate this area, and with the passage of the Ca-rnunications Pct of 1934, the trend to-8'al~ .,_ c(:,,rprahcr.si_va fcd2ral. regulation of interstate and foreign coa mninication by wire and radio was subFtaitielly ow-pleted. The Ccrmunications Act of 1934, provided for the establisI7,cnt of the Fedrral Cerro Tuni_cations Ccnr fission to execute and enforoa the provisions of the Act. 'ihe goals sought to by attained by adoption of the Act are clearly stated in Section 1: For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign ca-mt - ce in ccnimmica.t.ion by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nation-wiifla, and wnrld-wide wire and radio cr_=udcation service... and for the purpose of securing a mare effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority hereto granted by law to several. agencies aryl by granting additional au-J)ority with respect to inter- state and foreign ccrmrarce in wire and radio =tnuni - cation... 47 U.S.C. 9151. Pdditionally, Section 301 of the Act claims oomlete jurisdiction over rz�di.o energy for the federal goverment. Sect -ion 301 states: It is the parpose of this Pict, ain.rrg othr� things, to maint-in the cont _ of of the Unite , States ovo.r all the channels of interstate rnd foreign radio trans:nissi-on; and to provie, for t`�n use of sudh i2—,r1cr (Over) - 3 - Generally, it may be said that in matters irnrolvirl,g purely local concerns, courts have found that reasonable local statutes ma stand absent a clear conflict with the Act. For instar -e, local zoning ordinances limiting antenna heights, 5/ regulations on Professional advertising practices, 6/ and .the right of local cows to adjudicate property rights involving licensees facilities 7/ have all been upheld. On the other hand, where local law conflicts with the COr-ussion's regulatory scherro for radio services, the federal law will prevail. For example, state laws involving the censorship of'r;aterial carried on broadcast stations 8/ and those requiring Carmission lice zees to refrain frau activitiesrequired by the CcMmi iications Act 9/ have been struck down. The Ccarussion does not have the resources to routinely monitor state and local, laws which impact on radio nor can it interver_e in every local court Proceeding in which the validity of various laws are tested. Havever, licensees who feel vic+._i.mized by an improper local law re -y raise federal pre-e-ri�tion in their own behalf, and local legislative banes should consider the issue when contemplating the enactment of ordinances in areas regulated by the Ccrrrunicatiors Act. Since many of the inquiries and c0rplaints received by the Ccrrmission in this regard have concerned Citizens Band radio, local legislative bodies should also be aware that the Federal ComT:unications Cocrmission has issued extensive regulations governing this area. Accordingly, local offices designed specifically to regulate CB tlra--Zussions could be invalid according to the legal principles discussed above. _17 Ra6iO Act of 1912; Pub. No. 2064, ch. 2871 37 Stat. 302 (1912), For early cases dealing with the inherently interstate nature of radio see:. Federal Radio Curmission v. Nelson Brothers Bond and Mortgac*e Co., 289 U.S. 266, a io Ct 627, 77 L.F 1166 (1933) ; Tecnrucsl Paa-40 Laboratory v. Federal Radio aTmission, 36 F.2d 111 (D.C. Cir. 1929); L� -ted States v, ?etteridcre, 43 F. Supp. 53 i�i.D. Ohio 1942) ; United States v. r�r, cin Bond ana N_brtgage Co., 31 F.2d 448 (N.D. Ill. 1929), Q teh 787 (E.D. 1927). 1:rst- v. Grirrss, 21 F.2d Ky, 2/ See, e. .J. 4488 Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc.,, U.S. , 45 U.S.L.-4 Via 24, 1977 , Y Y City o f Burbank v . Lockheed � 624, 93 S. Ct. 1854, 36 L.Ed. -,Ie--T-=, , e --T- n� , Inc .411 U.S. )1e� Examiners, 2d 547 (1913) ; iiv, 374 U.S. 424, 83 S. Ct. 1759, 10 L. Fri.?d w ;rFX;ro rd of arra Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 83 933 S. Ct. ('_SG3) Flori&a Lire 1210, 10 -L-Ed. 248 (1963); L. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Co .,331 U.S. 218, 2� 67 S. Ct. 11, 91 FA.1447 ( 47 , (Over) y A SOLUTION TO Television Interference Problems To TELEVIsioN RECEIVER DISTRIRGTORS AND TECHNICIANS: The Federal Communications Commission has urged the formation of "TVI (television interference) Committees in communities where in- terference to picture reception is or may be a problem. Under FCC C o(: 14�A 0ii'- sponsorship, such a group has been formed in this area. composed of capable volunteers �%orking in cooperation «ith FCC and ready to assist in determining causes of interference and recommending solutions. In -,orne small percentage of cases the cause of interference mai- be unauthorized transmission of a signal in the television channels affected. Because amateur radio stations are located mostly- in residential areas, occasionally they may be a source of interference. A primary function of the local TVI Committee is to handle interference cases, and the Committee can very quickly- investigate and determine whether the fault is the amateur's. If it is, remedies can be promptly applied. In by far the majority- of cases, running as high as 90'� in manti- citie:. the reason for interference is found to be inadequacies of TV receiver design and construction. Examples are: (1) The TV receiver does not have sufficient intermediate frequency (21 or 11 `1c.) shielding or isolation, so that legitimate radio transmis- sions on or near such frequencies are picked ►►p by these internal receiver circuits. (2) "Che TN receiver does not have sufficient ;electivity to reject strong signals from nearby transmitters operating on their authorized frequencies far removed from the Th channels affected. On the center pages of this leaflet are shown a number of typical interference patterns, their probable causes, and suitable remedies. We suggest you post this chart in your workshop. ...........: : TL LE V AJ 10 _N, \ 1 1 l t'L 1 l L N'C 1 COMMON SYMPTOMS AND REMEDIES "(:rocs-ltatelling" like this is calls(-(] by a continuous-wave signal, unmodulated. It tray, be caused by (1) harmonic radiation in the TV channel to N�luch the receiver is tuned, originating in a nearby radio transmitter. (2) Spurious responses, in the television receiver itself, to a signal legitimately radiated by a nearby transutitter. If the interference is caused by harmonic radiation, it can be cured only at the source — i.e., the offending transmitter. Spurious receiver response can not be cured by working on the transmitter; in most cases, the interference will be eliminated by installation of a high-pass filter at the tuner input terminals. Interference from industrial heating equipment and diathermy machines is easily identified by tit(- dark horizontal bar (sometirmes there are tuo such bars) «high, in less severe cases, will be found to be composed of �%avy lines. its shm%n. It stay be caused by a harmonic actually in the'I'V channel, but is e(lnally likely to result from overloading of the TV receiver', antenna -input stage or "front end" if tilt. heating eclniprueut is ncarl�v. Try a high-pass filter. if this dot.s not effect a cure, it is probably that it harmonic is resl)onsible. This. mast be cured at the ctluipntent itself. Fine, broken limes or a "salt and pepper" effect are the result of radiation in the TV channel, caused by sparkling devices such as spark plugs in automobiles or oil -burner ignition systems, or commutators such as are used in the motors of food mixers, shavers, vacuum cleaners, and other household devices equipped with small motors. This inter- ference must be cured at the source. Where it is practicable to do so, an interference filter installed on the offending equipment will help. .... .......I.... L-1-1 iaa uae eiLluatn. for suggestions ars to types of filters and methods of installation. Wavy cross -hatching identifies a continuously running oscillator 10. as typified by the local oscillator in a TV or FM receiver. The waviness is caused by a small amount of frequency instability, and will vary with the particular oscillator (note that the cross -hatching from a regular transmitter is characterized by straight lines as shown in the first illustration. Cross-liatching of the wave type can usually be traced to a nearby receiver, and usually is caused by radiation actually in the TV channel. There is no easy cure --- except to turn off the offending receiver. IF the interference is found to originate with an Amateur Radio Station Litermittent horizontal bars superimposed on a background of cross -hatching, identify an amplitude-ntodulated signal from a conventional radio- telephone transmitter. The causes are the sante as for plaid cross -hatching as described above — i.e. either harmonic radiation from the transmitter, or more likely, spurious responses on the part of the TV receiver. Before attempting to contact the operator of the transmitter — usually, in most cities, police, fire, taxicab or amateur stations — try a high-pass filter at the antenna -input terntals of the receiver's tuner. If the interference persists after installing the filter, it may be caused by harntonie radiation in the 'TV channel and the TVI Committee or station operator should be eonsnited. Try ee high-pass filter ern the receiver first. In nine cascs out Of ten, the trouble is "front-end overloading" in the•'1'V receiver. There is no way of cc►ntl►atirtg this it the transmitter. It is purely at receiver problem --one of providing sttfficiertt sclectivil�. The high-pass filter is the answer. If the interference still oceurs after this test, get its touch .villi the TVI Committee at the T l (:11;11AIIT 'l;'l; .-fDDRIs:5S: address hch►W. '('erste will he required to de- termine t he excel cause. Two principal ones are: (1) Direct pick-up of amateur 21-Mv. signals on the U. wiring of sets using the• old 21 -,Nle-, U. (2) Spurious responses from I l f -11c. signals in TV receivers using strip conversion for u.h.f. reception. The (:om- Mittee will aid in finding the reason for the interference and methods for eliminating it. 1 � 1 BECAUSE in most cases the cause of picture interference is inadequate rejection of unwanted signals in the TV receiver, the most common solu- tion — and one which has proved very effective — is in the installation of a "high-pass filter." This simple device, inserted in the antenna lead at the receiver (or in difficult cases inside the receiver chassis at the input transformer), passes high -frequency TV signals to the receiver circuits but rejects signals on frequencies lower than the TV channels. A number of companies produce inexpensive high-pass filters. Inasmuch as investigations by FCC and TVI Committees have slio%s n tinie and again that the only remedy for interference can be applied at the TV receiver itself, usually- in the form of a high-pass filter, the Commission has Aorked out a cooperative plan %pith major television receiver manufacturers to furnish filters (usually without charge) to their customers experiencing such interference. In investigating interference complaints, the procedure recommended by FCC includes the temporary insertion of a high-pass filter to deter- inine its effectiveness. If a service technician finds by trial that a high= pass filter in the antenna input eliminates or reduces the interference, lie should advise the customer accordingly and report the problem to the manufacturer"s distributor or representative. Usually the manufacturer will supply the filter. Cases of interference from amateur station: NOhich are not solved by a high-pass filter may be referred to the local TVI Committee, address sho%% n on the center pages of this leaflet, which kill he glad to investigate complaints promptly. Furnished as a public serrice by THE: kNEKICAN RADIO REL.%y LEAGUE, Nel,irigto►i, Connecticut Amateur radio clubs compete in field day NORTH CLOVE—Hundreds of amateur radio clubs are taking part this weekend in the annual field day on top of Blueberry Hill, Town of Union Vale. The event, as in the past, has been set up by the Poughkeepsie Amateur Radio Club. In addition to the many clubs parti- cipating, thousands of individual sta i tions are competing. Field Day is a nationwide contest sponsored each year by the Ameri- can Radio Relay League. Its purpose is to test how fast and accurately amateur radio operators can ex- change information over the air waves. This provides a means for { amateur raido operators to practice readiness for emergency disaster communication. - i The site of the Field Day on Blue- berry Hill is property owned by for- mer Sheriff Lawrence M. Quinlan. Field flay operations began Satur- day and will run until 2 p.m. today. ` -11 TP t. �4� ',,,,, �+�. T '�,'r '� 'G., `. �'~ ���# � i •'-i. ''�� r�� ,c-� .'.0 �r�, �, ''ter s �a �'.. � ..� ' ,� �r*t.''c n.� �-scY-- r- H3•r� �J,� a 3 rr t `5:.'�,'- ♦... ,, "s=i ,f -.s.� "iii- ; ���` c �` �"''t F •*' L.. ,:i7+t� Nt .� � � � "? • `a'� � a .���� � Yom, - !v � ��-:�; � � �. � rtrt� �` ,�'•``� 'Y � , •a,_ '♦� ," �Tif>`1��.� ,+wSF �� r�"�. �Y�:_� - ,Mv: �.1 Y', 5;�. v. .',!w�"..Arw- n � R t ` �' '`.�' ��'Y �, • ,Y'w94�, y�-� i. t.� � '. � -� :f ��`;:� earn �. .r5r; •wz'r F i�� Y�.s f�5"� i" 33'at' s� ° �3.Em= ar __ ,�.. �* n 4-a* +d+='Y' r nl— . Yrs -- WE Saw Ja ` �'e-r..'�rogw ;,4¢` _. � y %iki3� i'1. t, -'- •:$... �_ ;�r'4 ;'. x r i .. Strange Sounds, Bad Pictures, e,.. By Miriam Ottenbert Star rie., s+.n W,ne, Fairfax County neighbors of an amateur radio operator threw fish at his door, scrawled obscenities on his wall and snubbed his wife because they blamed firm for the strange sounds coming out of their television sets. The cause of that neighborhood squabble is reflected in more than 42,000 complaints to the Federal Communications Commis- sion last year from people whose television sets, hi-fis, phonographs, stereos, elec- tronic organs, tape recorders, intercoms and radios have delivered unwanted voices or distorted pictures "iT'S VERY embarrassing The man doesn't know he's in church and what he says can be heard over what the minister is saying " Although complainants regularly blame the ham operators or CBers for the inter- ference that tears up their pictures and ob- literates their sound, the FCC says that �o nine_ out of 10 cases, the fault is in the re- ceiver and not the sender. `'Those ham operators and the three to five million citizen hand radios would not cause interference to television and other home entertainment devices if companies had considered interference problems when they manufactured the sets." said James C. McKinney, chief of FCC's :n- forcement division. "I don't know of any sets being built with filtering devices adequate to screen out um%anted signals Our present rules don't require manufacturers to do anything along these lines," he said "WE TELL them that the man next door is doing nothing wrong," UcKinney said We gave him a license to transmit and he s doing it properly We advise them to have a high-pass filter installed on their set to filter out the unwanted signals But they argue that they dont see uhy they hase to ,pend rxtncy to fix their set when it wa, all right until their neighbor started irari,mitting We're left in the middle of an argument we can't win - As the problems and the protests have, mounted, ham operators sneary of being unfairly accused - have urged legis lation to require TV sets to be built with adequate filters to reject unwanted sig- nals Thousands of supporting letters trom across the country reached Rep. Charles M. Teague, R Calif., after he in- troduced legislation to require that radio and television receivers meet FCC stand- ards for filtering out interference. AMONG enthusiastic supporters of the measure was the Prince Georges County Council, which had been told about inter- ference problems during its hearings on antenna heights. In a resolution sent to Teague and Mary- land Congressmen, the council urged pas- sage of the Teague measure to benefit TV owners by eliminating the possibility of interference and aiding the general public "by allowing the full benefits of amateur radio to be realized in an atmosphere free of contention over alleged interference." "it's just a coil device that could be in- stalled easily in the sets," commented Council Chairman Francis B Francois. ' I think if people knew the truth, they'd de- mand that manufacturers design then- sets to eliminate interference Amateur opera- tors are being unfairly blamed. T'h real cause i, improper manufacture of the Teague died in January before his bill reached the hearing stage Now. Rep Tor- bert H Macdonald, D Mass , chairman of the House Commerce subcommittee on power and communications, has told the Star News that there is considerable opin- ion that the FCC can require the manufac- turers to put the necessary filters into tele- vision sets without additional legislation. HE SAiD he would explore the pro: with the new FCC chairman Richar Wiley, and "if he says he needs legisla I have no objection to putting it in alth, it's simpler and speedier if it can be without Congress ordering it. - Asked the opinion of the industr spokesman for the Electronic Indus Assn. at first said that the association ommended that manufacturers not interference refection devices to telev sets where less than one percent of tomers have probleau. The association said it recommei that manufacturers make filters and i matron available on a local, uidividua sis Later, after learning that the ince ence problem is rising rapidly, Euger Koschella, assistant vice president of association': consumer elcctromc gr said the association has asked the FC send representatives to its service com tee meeting this week to recommend p - hie solutions to the more frequent p leets "Apparently the wide growth in c the air broadcasting, l'B, ham. two - radio. increased power ANI and F\t tions, etc . warrant a fre,h look into positions ' Koschella acknowledged ALTHOUGH Koschella said major r ufacturers provide free filters for c plaining TV owners. those seeking but filters argue that even free filters req a SIS sen ice call for a technician to iris them. REPRINTED BY PERMISSION OF THE WASHINGTON STAR -NEWS, COPYRIGHT 1974, WASHINGTON STA * NOT TO BE REPRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION M THE LAST three years, according to the FCC, the number of complaints has doubled as the number of licensed citizen `. band operators has grown to 810,000 using three to five mill -ion transmitters as a growing number of unlicensed operators p' have flooded the airwaves and as more homes have acquired second TV sets and a wide range of other electronic entertain- ment devices Across the nation, about two thirds of the complaints deal with interference to TV, but to the Washington area, more complaints center on interference to audio system, .uch as amplifiers. electric guitars and organs and, especially, ht fis "' On several occasions.- reported Harold R Richman, engineer in charge of en ' Iorcemrnt in FCC's Washington are a des i` .. triet office, "pastors have reported that mobile units calling their bases have come over the amplifier right in the rrudst of the : ser,mon "iT'S VERY embarrassing The man doesn't know he's in church and what he says can be heard over what the minister is saying " Although complainants regularly blame the ham operators or CBers for the inter- ference that tears up their pictures and ob- literates their sound, the FCC says that �o nine_ out of 10 cases, the fault is in the re- ceiver and not the sender. `'Those ham operators and the three to five million citizen hand radios would not cause interference to television and other home entertainment devices if companies had considered interference problems when they manufactured the sets." said James C. McKinney, chief of FCC's :n- forcement division. "I don't know of any sets being built with filtering devices adequate to screen out um%anted signals Our present rules don't require manufacturers to do anything along these lines," he said "WE TELL them that the man next door is doing nothing wrong," UcKinney said We gave him a license to transmit and he s doing it properly We advise them to have a high-pass filter installed on their set to filter out the unwanted signals But they argue that they dont see uhy they hase to ,pend rxtncy to fix their set when it wa, all right until their neighbor started irari,mitting We're left in the middle of an argument we can't win - As the problems and the protests have, mounted, ham operators sneary of being unfairly accused - have urged legis lation to require TV sets to be built with adequate filters to reject unwanted sig- nals Thousands of supporting letters trom across the country reached Rep. Charles M. Teague, R Calif., after he in- troduced legislation to require that radio and television receivers meet FCC stand- ards for filtering out interference. AMONG enthusiastic supporters of the measure was the Prince Georges County Council, which had been told about inter- ference problems during its hearings on antenna heights. In a resolution sent to Teague and Mary- land Congressmen, the council urged pas- sage of the Teague measure to benefit TV owners by eliminating the possibility of interference and aiding the general public "by allowing the full benefits of amateur radio to be realized in an atmosphere free of contention over alleged interference." "it's just a coil device that could be in- stalled easily in the sets," commented Council Chairman Francis B Francois. ' I think if people knew the truth, they'd de- mand that manufacturers design then- sets to eliminate interference Amateur opera- tors are being unfairly blamed. T'h real cause i, improper manufacture of the Teague died in January before his bill reached the hearing stage Now. Rep Tor- bert H Macdonald, D Mass , chairman of the House Commerce subcommittee on power and communications, has told the Star News that there is considerable opin- ion that the FCC can require the manufac- turers to put the necessary filters into tele- vision sets without additional legislation. HE SAiD he would explore the pro: with the new FCC chairman Richar Wiley, and "if he says he needs legisla I have no objection to putting it in alth, it's simpler and speedier if it can be without Congress ordering it. - Asked the opinion of the industr spokesman for the Electronic Indus Assn. at first said that the association ommended that manufacturers not interference refection devices to telev sets where less than one percent of tomers have probleau. The association said it recommei that manufacturers make filters and i matron available on a local, uidividua sis Later, after learning that the ince ence problem is rising rapidly, Euger Koschella, assistant vice president of association': consumer elcctromc gr said the association has asked the FC send representatives to its service com tee meeting this week to recommend p - hie solutions to the more frequent p leets "Apparently the wide growth in c the air broadcasting, l'B, ham. two - radio. increased power ANI and F\t tions, etc . warrant a fre,h look into positions ' Koschella acknowledged ALTHOUGH Koschella said major r ufacturers provide free filters for c plaining TV owners. those seeking but filters argue that even free filters req a SIS sen ice call for a technician to iris them. REPRINTED BY PERMISSION OF THE WASHINGTON STAR -NEWS, COPYRIGHT 1974, WASHINGTON STA * NOT TO BE REPRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION Au, CIC .I. ' (J"IP, Ve n�v . - a �nSon —•..., CC MILITARY gFFltlgT}•-AfARIN'E CORPS l �/Q )//3 E RAD10 SYSTEf1f ;;, / I A (RS) lorn op ti1a Zoning t ppin9er a ll St� ni s tra t or et ppingeps Falls T,r. Y. Dear Sir• R, D• 0s a 3 I Ro_C 124 Fps a ill =il? goad Ju13, 10� �1 u� 122' I an writing Torn Of , to 'aP�i:nger and as a confer ("`ili tart' A- • - . as a re. ned ci t zlzate Radio S r �= esentatiT,e iz n °= the apt the To,n Bo_)5 s tee of 1. R. S. `ro meeting of Juno'26s advised �o do Regarding • enclosing a cTt�-o Pr000sed ion; 1�aval � of Sec tion 1 g regula ti ons _ lelecomj L�nfcat 01.0100 - 01 5n: cf _ -� ?,formation. ons Procedures •0 0 t^e i tion of 1~i It states d ma•nuel� nor -o,,,, unc the � i .ARS f1nition , L �- • f iS L,Or-- and This letter is in behalf I � 0_ the Air Force i% A S IT of, the concerned •-e=- ir. this area. •' 1"av;� -f•A•R.s.1 and - :°ens u R After reading the enclosure, please note ;, ie f 0110wino : Section 414.1: Projecting Features Above Roof Level 414.1 This section would severlsr ., " the efficie-icy of transmitting antennas for M.A.R.S, 000r :tion. I would suggest that transmitting antero is be exempted .from this secti one and let ati�--_ic-.ble Federal Communications Cornmission (F. .5.) and Federal Aviation Administration (--7'. A.A _ _EU- lations be tie controlling factors. Section -)+83.7: Electrom��gnetic Interference 4L Triis section is entiRel;; too broad. ^Here °e no minimum or maximum levels of electroma,- netic interfe.-ence cited, and no method of measure- ment. The vast majority of this type of interference is traced beck to poor deswgr of eceivin; apparatus. This is also the sole RL CFI QED JUL 13 1979 ELAINE N, SNOWDEN -2_ doma'n Of the F. C. C Act of per ethe ntirely. This section s ,n tions should be o I �,rould deleted matter) and appreciate above �,rish to Jour cons propose be advised lderation in before a final SvotP is at I may make fur do clsions this t aker_. - �._er co1r�en the t Sincerely AFK/dk enc, IdRT��i D Alfred F. '�utka� Jr. c �"—,.a2�:S++�f7'st=a� xiit.+,.�is.•r._,�.a%=.�.....�.:...a:F vv-�.e-tom. .rrn. _. ,r c -e --.e _r. �. _«. _ . __. _ �: _.." ._ ... _. _ ...� _ - UNCLASSIFIED CHAPTER 1 4 MISSION AND POLICY NTP 8 NAVY -MARINE CORPS !ARS � T 01.0100 Definition Navy -Marine Corps Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) is a program conducted by the Department of the Navy in which licensed U.S. amateur radio stations and operators voluntarily participate and contribute to the mission of providing auxiliary communications on a local, national or international basis as an adjunct to normal Naval Communications. '%-%RS" in this instruction refers only to the Navy -Marine Corps MARS Program unless NikRS (army or Air Force) is specified. 01.0200 History 01.0210 Army and Air Force MARS MARS was originally known as the Military Amateur Radio System. This system was established on 26 November 1948 on authority of the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force in Joint Regulations (SR 105-75-1 and AF 102-3, Communi- cations Military Amateur Radio System). Subsequently, by order of the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force, the identity of MARS was changed to the "Military Affiliate Radio System". 01.0220 Navy's Early Associations The U.S. Navy's association with amateur radio dates back to the very inception of the art of wireless communications. With the commissioning of Navy Radio, Arlington, "NAA", in 1913, another source of practice for continuous wave (CW) was born, and many of the "old timers" cut their "CIV' teeth on the weather reports, time signals, and notices to mariners emanating from the old landmark. The U.S. Navy realized immediately the immense potential to be gained by a close relationship with amateur radio and assumed a policy of encouragement and support. I Within ten days of the United States' entry into World War I on 7 April 1917, 500 of the.6000 U.S. radio amateurs were enlisted for duty in the U.S. Navy and, before the end of the war, another 3500 amateurs had joined the armed forces. World War II saw over 25,000 amateur radio operators serving with the armed forces and many thousands more assisting in industry and war research work. These early associations with amateur radio have been the basis of a long and continuing close relationship between the U.S. Navy and the amateur radio fraternity. 01.0230 Navy -Marine Corps MARS Authorized On 17 August 1962, the Honorable Fred Korth, Secreiary of the Navy, approved a recommendation made by the Chief of Naval Operations to organize a Navy -Marine Corps MARS program to be implemented on 1 January 1963. 01.0240 Department of Defense Support On 30 November 1968, the Department of Defense issued a directive formalizing the composition, mission and functions, and the organization of the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS), and set forth policies concerning UNCLASSIFIED 1-1 ORIGINAL r. ...i ri..r..rs1—w.�iw.c`i'T'CS.:i�14Me. w'4.f�iih..C: ..wr A�'i. _—.rr..lw. .L t.+r..— � e'•+'--�<':} 1 +f — L .r .... - UNCLASSIFIED NTP 8 01.0240 (Continued) Department of Defense support of both MARS and civil .Amateur Radio activities. 01.0300 Mission and Functions 'r 01.0310 MARS Mission ' The mission of the Military Affiliate Radio System ('LARS) is to provide m ' Department of the Navy sponsored emergency comunications on a and international basis as an adjunct to normal Naval local national, 1 Co,--un_cations . 01.0320 Functions Provide auxiliary communications available to military, civil and/or disaster officials during periods of emergency. Assist in effecting normal Naval communications under emergency conditions. Handle morale and quasi-offi- for armed forces and authorized U.S. cial record and voice co-munications traffic Government civilian personnel stationed throughout the world. Create interest, and furnish a means of training me:--be -:J rs in Naval communications procedures. Provide a potential reserve of trained radio communications personnel for military duty when needed. Conduct, in conjunction with the MARS Progra.s of the Departments of the Army and Air Force, an appropriate Amateur Radio program as a part of the annual celebration of Armed Forces Day. 01..0400 MARS Policy i It shall be the policy of the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) to; Support and encourage MARS and Amateur Radio activity within the Department of the Navy and to avoid any action which would tend to jeopardize the independent prerogatives of the individual amateur radio operator. Recognize the technical and operating Proficiencies in the Possession of a valid amateur radio license issued by the 1Federalrent Communications Commission.or other competent U.S. authority. Encourage and cooperate in the development of amateur and private communication activities of the United States toward the enhancement of their military and civil value. Maintain liaison with the Departments of the Array and .-lir Force, recognized U.S. Amateur Radio organizations and the Federal Ce"rmunication Commission on matters concerning the MARS Program. t 01.0500 Primary Concept The primary concept of the MARS is to meet the requirements of training ~ for any communications emergency. To this end, organization, methods and facilities must be adequate to meet any emergency requirements and must be flexible in order to provide for rapid expansion. Normal methods must be such that only minor changes will be required when shifting to an emergency status. UNCLASSIFIED ---.,:....,.r 1 1 1-2 ORIGINAL NTP 8 0l.0S00 (Continued) Based upon the above concept, the following principles have been proven under all conditions. Reliability,' security and speed are the three fundamental requirements of MARS communications. Reliability is always paramount. It must never be sacrificed to achieve security or speed. The most detailed instructional publications and the Most up-to-date equipment in no way lessens the need for initiative, common sense and good judg- ment in the planning and conduct''of MARS communications. Correct methods of operation and precise use of established procedures are essential for effective appreciation of how, when, and where to send messages. Rapid communications must be limited to the minimum required for the successful accomplishment of the operational task assigned. 1-3 ORIGINAL (Reverse Blank) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6257 `T' n July 13th, 1979 i1�/VEO 1319?9 ;;v H, sNowOE 4 N ,Town Board Town of Wappinger Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 RE: New Zoning Ordinance. Dear Board Members: Enclosed for your review is a copy of a letter dated May 11th, 1979 in which the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals expressed concern on permitted uses and home occupations in residential zones. Further, in reviewing the newsprint copy of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Appeals has additional concerns regarding the following definitions. 1. "Family" - The Board feels this needs clarification especially with regard to "foster home". 2. "Farm Use" - It is the opinion of the Board that perhaps there should be a minimum acreage requirement or further clarification as it appears that anyone who has a "victory garden" could fall within this classification. 3. "Greenhouse" - Does this mean there are no provisions for sale of stock from greenhouses? It also appears that this definition would apply to something such as the Cary Arboretum. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPiNGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS, NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6257 Town Board -2- July 13th, 1979 4. "Garage, Public" - The Board thinks there could be a problem with the phrase which reads "and the sale of motor fuels dispensed from pumps located within the garage building," and suggest that it read "and/or" as the present wording could be construed to mean that there must be fuel pumps in every public garage. Additionally, the Building Inspector advised that this might be in violation of the Fire Prevention Law. 5. There is no definition on "nursery" either "day nursery" or "nursery school". It would be most appreciated if the Zoning Board members could receive copies of the zoning ordinance when they are reprinted. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, — e (Mrs.) tty-Ann Russ, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals br Enclosure cc: Jon Holden Adams, Attorney to the Town Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin. Planning Board Members David Portman, F.P. Clark Associ es Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk Zoning Board Members 141 _ 7 C', C_ �� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6257 I May 11th, 1979 Board Members Nicholas S. Johnson & Janet Reilly Town of wappinger Town Board Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Dear Board Members: The Zoning Board of Appeals would appreciate it that in your consideration of the above -captioned subject that the permitted uses and home occupations in residential zones be carefully looked at with regard to setting certain minimum acreage require-..ents for some of the permitted uses. As an example, the present Zoning Ordinance permits nursery schools in R-15 and R-20 zones and the Board feels that in this particular instance, a minimum of one acre is necessary. The Zoning Board has these concerns as due to the general econ-=iz conditions there are more and more people seeking approval of these uses to supplement their incomes. The Board would be willing to meet with you should you wish to discuss this issue with them. Very truly yours, (Mrs. Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals br CC: David Portman, Frederick P. Clark Associates Robert G. Ruit, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE The Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, New York, as lead agency for the proposed Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Regulations project has caused this Environ- mental Assessment to be prepared, pursuant to the require- ments of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Part 617 of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York, Assessment of the potential environmental impact of this project is based upon environmental critegia as out- lined in the State Environmental Quality Review Act, It is the determination of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger that the proposed Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Regulations will have no adverse impact on the environment and therefore this Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, with the attached commentary and appendices is made and declared to be the findings of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, Adopted by Resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger at a regular meeting on July 9, 1979, The determination of the environmental impact resulting from the adoption of a comprehensive revised zoning ordinance and map must be made in the context of the many variables which attach to land use practices. At one end of the spectrum, land development and use, when viewed in the environmental context, could be wholly denied to prevent any impact on environmental elements. At the opposite end of the spectrum, land use could be unregulated, thereby creating a maximum potential for adverse impact upon environmental elements. Human needs and the promotion thereof require both the consideration of the environmental elements and the consideration of whether or not at times, such human needs may outweigh the preservation of environ- mental elements in their pristine state. Where development is inevitable, environmental considerations require that such development be permitted in a manner that will minimize environmental impact. Any zoning ordinance necessarily reflects the weighing of interest between development and preservation of the environment, A zoning ordinance which absolutely forbids development would be constitutionally suspect. Conversely, a zoning ordinance which failed to consider environmental elements would be equally suspect in terms of meeting legitimate environmental objectives. Consideration of land use proposals must also be made in the context of existing land use experiences within the municipality. Finally, any land use evaluation made in environmental context to the extent that such evaluation attempts to project actual impact is inherently speculative, as the objective of such zoning ordinance is not to affirmatively cause growth, but to control the same. Whether or not such development will take place cannot be ascertained with any degree of reasonable certainty. Therefore, the ability to project actual impacts is diminished. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the foregoing constraints, a determination of no adverse environmental impact is made for the following reasons: 1. Commercial activity will be relegated to those areas which are presently heavily used. Commercial areas will not be expanded into areas of current low density land use, thus eliminating the impact of such commercial activity to areas already experiencing high intensity views. Illustrative is the Route 9 corridor. 2. Low density residential zoning is generally prevelant in those areas adjacent to the Hudson River, thus minimizing the impact of any development upon the ecological system of the river. 3. Higher intensity residential development is limited to those areas generally served by municipal water and sewage facilities, thus minimizing the impact of such development on existing water tables and sub- surface waters. 4. Section 480 of the zoning ordinance makes provision for the control of obnoxious activities including but not limited to noise, vibrations, smoke, dust, toxic matters, traffic, and other activities that if left unregulated would adversely affect the quality of the environment. No comparable provisions are present in the existing zoning ordinance. 5. Provision is made for site plan review of all non- residential activities, empowering town agencies, as an incidence to development, to take into consideration environmental factors and considerations in regulating development of such sites. 6. Provision is made for special considerations which are attached to development of flood -prone areas. 7. Provision is made for designated residential develop- ment (Section 442) which development places priority upon considerations of preservation of environmental features. Such designated residential development is a floating zone permitted throughout the town. APPENDIX C LIST OF INVOLVED AGENCIES The Town Board of the Town of Wappinger is the sole agency involved in the funding or approval of this action. The proposed Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Regulations document has been reviewed by the Commissioner of the Dutchess County Department of Planning, pursuant to Section 239-M of the General Municipal Law. This agency may only recommend changes or state objections to the proposed zoning ordinance, but does not fund or approve the project. Further, it has been ascertained that there are no other agencies involved in the funding or approval of this action. DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE Based upon the determination of no significant effect on the environment of the proposed Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Regulations, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA DETERMINED NOT TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS The criteria listed below, considered to be indicators of potential significant effect on the environment, will not be adversely affected by enactment of the proposed Compre- hensive Zoning and Land Use Regulations. 1. A substantial increase in solid waste production. 2. The substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. 3. Impacts on a significant habitat area. 4. Substantial adverse effects on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of such a species. 5. The encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few days compared to the number of people who would come to such place absent the action. 6. A major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy. 7. The creation of a material demand for other actions which would result in one of the above consequences. The land use controls contained in the proposed Compre- hensive Zoning and Land Use Regulations Ordinance will, for each criterion listed, protect the environmental factors to a more significant degree than the existing zoning ordinance of the Town of Wappinger. ODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHRORHOOD 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHARACTER 'IF THE EXISTING NO YES COMMUNITY?G O Example that Would Apoly to Column 2 The population of the City, Town or Village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. _-_- The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove nrime agricultural lands from cultivation. The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Project will set an important precedent for future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Other impacts: oe� 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? ....... NO YES © O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the project or have not been contacted. Objections to the nro.ject from within the community. IF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: DETERMINATION PART I PART II PART 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will result in no major impacts and, therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION O X�i4R?��il!£XP�4�1�}�R����C4�X7€k�R�4itX�Xt�XXXX XXX1K FLRs�CCXxr���XXIXXX X�X# @$fd�E ciltlf�X§f$�l6iRi3�#X O to % / 7----�T--- gnature of Pr er if d' Brent from responsible officer) Jon Ho en ams, Esq. -0 Cr Signature of'Rpsponsible Off cia in Lead Agency Louis D, Diehl, Supervisor Print or type name of responsible official in Lead Agencv EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Information (Read Carefully) - In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily si n�ifica�nt. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an e eif ct in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshold of mia—g—niTuTe that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact tflen consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. 1 7 z IMPACT ON LAND NO YES WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO 0C PROJECT SITE? Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. _ Construction on Land where the death to the water table is less than 3 feet. ____ ronstruction of paved parkinq area for 1,"10 or more vehicles. — CAnstruction on land where bedrock is exposed or qenerally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill 5- SMALL TO MODERATE IMPACT POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT CAN IMPACT BE REDUCED BY PROJECT CHANGE Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts:-- ------ ------- — NO YES 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LA.NO FORMS OO FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological forma- 0ons, etc.) Snecific land forms: —_—_-- - — — TO POTENTIAL I CAN IMPACT BE TE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT ON WATER NO YES 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESIGNATED AS 00 PROTECTED? (Under Articles15, 24, 25 of the Envir- onmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: -- 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON -PROTECTED EXISTING, OR NFIJ NO YES BODY OF VIATER?............................................0 0 Exam les that Would Apply to Column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body '— of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of _ surface area. Other impacts: ___--- ------------- ----1r6 YES 5. (JILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR G,ROUND14ATER MALITY? 00 Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 _ Project will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Project requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination _ of a public water supply system. _ Project will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to — ___ facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in _ excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge _ into an existing body of water to the extent that there visual contrast to natural conditions. will be an obvious -A- Other Imoacts: 6. WILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLO11, PATTEM OR SURFACE !TATER NO YE RUNOFF? .................................................. O� Examole that 91ould Anply to Colunn 2 Project would impede flood water flows. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. _, Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. DNO YE; ILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY?...........................NO F.xa_ mples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will induce 1,OOO or more vehicle trips in any given hour. _ Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source nroducing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. — Other impacts: 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? NO YES NO C Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any Dortion of a critical or significant wild- life ha6it3 t. Apnlicatinn of Pesticide or heiticide over more than twice a Year other than for alricilturil purpm es. Other impacts: 9. !JILL PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT MON-THREATENED OR NO YES ENDANGERED SPECIES?.......................................0 O Example that Would Apply to Column 2 Project would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Project requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years in ane) or other locally important vegetation. -7- ►DILL TP MODERATE IMPACT POTENTIAL LARGE I!"PACT CAN IMPACT BE REDUCED BY PROJECT CHANGE i I I I"PACT 01'J VISII�L RESO;!RCE 10. WILL THE PP0JFCT AFFECT VIEWS, VISTAS OR THF V?SPAL NO CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR CO"'m"IIITY? .............. 0 Examnles that Mould Apply to Column 2 An incompatible visual affect caused by the introduction of new materials, colors and/or forms in contrast to the surrounding landscape. _ A project easily visible, not easily screened,that is obviously different from others around it. Project will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES 11. WILL PROJECT IMIPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES PRE-HISTOPIC OR PALEONTOGICAL IVPOPTANCE? .................0 C Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project occurina wholly or nartially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on the National Renister of historic places. Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 12. (JILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE QUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YFS OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES?...... 0 O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opoortunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 13. !FILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NO YES SYSTEMS? ............................................... 0 O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Project will result in severe traffic problems. Other impacts: ILS f r SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT CE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT FIPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON ENERGY 14. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES ENERGY SUPPLY?...........................................0 Examples O that Would Apply to Column 2 _ Project causing qreater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 sinqle or two family residences. — Other impacts: IMPACT ON NOISE 15. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ....0 O Examples that Would AQDly to Column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. — Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). _ Project will nroduce operating noise exceedinn the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. T Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HEALTH & HAZARDS NO YFS 16. !•TILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? O O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will he a chronic low level discharge or emission. -' Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., includinn wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases.) _ Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liouified natural gas or other liouids. Other impacts: v TOWN OF WAPPILAGER MILL STREET July 16, 1979 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPERVISOR Jon H. Adams, Esq. Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea, Esq's. 35 Market Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 FALLS, N. Y. 12590 RE: Your letter of July 12th on Environmental Assessment Form, Zoning Ordinance Dear Jon: Please prepare the necessary resolution in respect to the Environmental declaration as you so state and forward so that the Town Board can pass it at the next Town Board meeting (no later that the August 13, 1979 regular Town Board meeting). I am presenting correct form (Part 2) of the Environ -ental Assessment Form to Mrs. Snowden, Town Clerk, for her records. Very truly yours, r Louis D. Diehl Supervisor Town of Wappinger LDD/db CC: Elaine Snowden Town Clerk'// Town Board Members MILL STREET 'TOWN OF WAPPI NGER July 17, 1979 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPERVISOR Mr. Roy Guarino BOX 21 Hopewell Junction, New York 12533 Dear Roy: W, =PINGERS FALLS. N. Y. 12590 Your property now zoned NB is the same as previous LB, no change in uses, "Neighbor Business" has the sa-me uses as Local Business. I think we both understand that, correct? In reviewing the present map with the 1972 zoning map, it appears if same scale is used in both cases the rear portion of your property now has returned to R-20 zone from LB zoning in 1972. Can I assume this is correct as you understand it? If this be a true fact, it is possible that a specific reason can be explained as to why the rear portion was taken out of NB. A research should be pursued to clarify this if such is true, or it is possible that in redrawing and preparing new map an error was made in drawing boundary lines, if same scale was used for both maps. I shall request an opinion of this situation from the Zoning Committee of the Town and from Clark Associates, Planners, who are employed by the Town of Wappinger. Subject to a reply to this situation, I shall contact you and if it actually was the intent for a specific reason or reasons to reduce your NB area, the direction you must take is to request a Public Hearing to reconsider this. Mr. Roy Guarino July 17, 1979 Page 2 of 2 Again, I offer my services to personally discuss this situation and will make my office available to you upon your request. Very truly yours, i •:Louis D. Diehl Supervisor Town of Wappinger LDD/db CC: Councilman Nicholas Johnson, Zoning committee Councilwoman Janet Reilly, Zoning Coruiittee David Portman, Frederick Clark Assoc. (please reply to Lou Diehl) SUPERVISOR LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPT. OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM P. HORTON TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE MILL STREET WAPPINGERS FALLS. N. Y. 12590 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN TOWN CLERK July 17, 1979 TOWN COUNCIL LEIF W. JENSEN NICHOLAS S. JOHNSON BERNICE R. MILLS JANET M. REILLY CLERK, DUTCHESS COUNTY LEGISLATURE COMM. DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 264 of the Town Law, that a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, on Monday, July 30th, 1979 at 8:00 PM EDST, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Village of Wappingers Falls, New York on an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the Town of Wappinger (Rt. 9 Commercial Adjustments), copy of which is herewith enclosed. All those persons interested are invited to attend said hearing. ELAINE H. SNOWDEN Town Clerk Town of Wappinger PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6256 June 19th, 1979 Town Board Members Town of Wappinger Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 RE: Referral of 5/29/79 on Proposed Zoning Ordinance & Map Dear Board Members: At their June 18th, 1979 meeting, the members of the Planning Board discussed the above -captioned referral and this letter is to advise you that the Board has no objection to the text of the proposed zoning ordinance. With regard to the proposed zoning map, the Planning Board would like to recommend the following changes: 1. NB Zone for two acre parcel of Chelsea Ridge Associates on Route 9D (presently zoned LB) as this parcel has received site plan approval for an enclosed shopping mall and the Board does not feel this should become a non -conforming parcel. (Shown on proposed map as R -MF -5) 2. HB -1 Zone for properties of Chemical Bank, Jack Davis and Power Test as the adjacent properties are so zoned. The Board does not understand why this particular area is zoned HB -2. (Shown on proposed map as HB -2) 3. HB -1 Zone for properties from Osborne Hill Road to Hopewell Road for a depth of 300 feet on both sides of Route 9. (Shown on proposed map as R-20, HB -2 & OR -10A) PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6256 Town Board -2- June 19th, 1979 The Planning Board would like to thank you in advance for your consideration of their recommendations. Members Present at the June 18th, 1979 meeting. Victor L. Fanuele Donald J. Keller Members Absent Virginia Keeler James V. Porter br George Brannen Dr. Harvey Miller James Mills Respectfully yours, (Mrs. Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board CC: Jon Holden Adams, Attorney to the Town Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin. David Portman, Frederick P. Clark Associates Planning Board Members / Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk ✓ -//?17a �- PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS, NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6256 July 25th, 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 RE: Provision for Archiectural Review Committee in the new Zoning Ordinance. Dear Board Members: This letter is to advise you that the Planning Board has been made aware that some residents desire a provision for an architectural review committee as part of the new Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board leaves this matter up to your good judgement on what you may wish to do with regard to such a committee and regulation in the Zoning Ordinance. Respectfully yours, A-'00� (Mrs.) etty-Ann Russ, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board br CC: Jon Holden Adams, Esq. - Attorne to the Town Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk Li'L DARLING SHOPPE CQ Imperial Plaza Wappingers Falls, N. Y. t2590 RECEIVED Tel: 297-2550 JUL 2 6 1979 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN July 25th 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 Gentlemen: As a result of the July 9th meeting which rezoned my property on Route 9 from HB 1 to residential, I respectfully request a hearing to rezone my property as it was before. I am still in agreement with the planning boards recommendation that all properties from Osborne Hill Road to Hopewell Road be zoned commercial. I, however, must consider the property I own, first and foremost. Thanking you in advance for your co-operation, I remain Respectfully yours, (7p_gilioj Uominicis 26 Fulton Street Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6256 July 23rd, 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 RE: Planning Board's letter of 7/20/79 on Recommended Changes to the Text of the Recently Adopted Zoning Ordinance. Dear Board Members: Additionally with regard to "Section 422: Schedule of Regulations for Non -Residential. Districts,"the Planning Board would like to request that reference to "Places of amusement or recreation, such as tennis or swimming clubs, roller or ice skating rinks and bowling alleys" be eliminated from the AI -'2A and PI-lA zones. The Planning Board feels these uses in every zoning district should be covered by the Recreation Use Development section of the Zoning Ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully yours, (Mr4 Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board br cc: Jon Holden Adams, Attorney to the Town Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspecto /Zoning Administrator David Portman, Frederick P* Cl)rk Associates Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk Town Board Members Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 Dear Town Board Members: 14 Ronsue Drive Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 July 26, 1979 RECEIVED JUL-P-71979 This letter is to advise you that ELAINE H. SNOWDEN y your adoption of a new zoning ordinance for Wappinger on July 9, 1979, is in violation of Wappinger Local Law No. 2, 1977 (Town of Wappinger Adminis- trative Guide for Implementation of S.E.Q.R.). Appendix B, Article II, Sections 20 and 20e (pages 28,30) of this ordinance state that: (Section 20) "Consistent with Part 617 of Title 6 NYCRR and : ne criteria therei::, the f o Llowirg are ccnsidered consideredto be Type I actions or classes of action for which environmental impact statements must be prepared because they will in almost every instance have a significant impact on the environment . . . (Section 20e) "The proposed adoption of comprehensive land use plans, zoning ordinances, building codes, comprehensive solid waste plans, state and regional transportation plans, water resource basin plans, comprehensive water quality studies, area -wide water treatment plans, and the like." Therefore, the above sections make it abundantly clear that an environmental impact statement was mandatory before the enact- ment of a new zoning ordinance. Accordingly, the current zoning ordinance is null and void. And it would appear that the town fathers could be held liable for any damages that would result from a defective ordinance such as the one presently on the books. If the Wappinger Town Board Members continue to disregard their obligation to comply with the law, this misconduct would constitute malfeasance. I am prepared to take this matter to the courts if a good faith effort is not made to straighten out this matter as soon as possible. Yours trul "9 Joseph Incoronato SUPERVISOR LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPT. OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM P. HORTON TOWN OF WAPPiNGER TOWN C L E R K' S OFF ICE MILL STREET WAPPINGERS FALLS. N. Y. 12590 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN TOWN CLERK July 27, 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Dear Board Members: -0r.1 LE % S JOHNSON _A\E- " REILLY Supervisor Diehl has called a Special Meeting for Monday, July 30, 1979 at 6:30 P.M. for the sole purpose of adopting a resolution amending a prior resolution adopted July 9, 1979 which set forth a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance with respect to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and for the further purpose of readopting the Zoning Ordinance upon the revised environmental findings. Yours truly Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk Town of Wappinger SUPERVISOR LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPT. OF HI..:HWAYS WILLIAM P. HORTON TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE MILL STREET WAPPINGERS FALLS. N. Y. 12590 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN TOWN CLERK July 27, 1979 TOWN CO-'NCIL LEIF W JENSEN NICHOLAS S JOHNSON 9ERNICE R N!LLS JANET til REILLY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF G;APPINGER HAS BEEN CALLED BY SUPERVISOR DIEHL FOR Monday, July 30, 1979 6:30 P.M. Town Hall Mill Street Wappingers Falls New York The Sole Purpose of adopting a resolution amending a prior resolution adopted July 9, 1979 which set forth a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance with respect to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and for the further purpose of readopting the Zoning Ordinance upon the revised environmental findings. Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk Town of Wappinger (This notification should not be construed as a request for a legal advertisement, it is for your information only.) FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, Consultants Planning • Development • Environment • Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut 29 1-oc!ist Avenue Rya, Fvew York 10580 (9 14) 967-6540 Frederick P. Clark (1909-1958) David J. Portman, AICP Frederick E. Wiedle, AICP July 30, 1979 Wappinger Town Board Attn: Supervisor Louis D. Diehl Town Hall Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Subject: Zoning Ordinance Dear Lou: This is in response to your letter of July 17, 1979 addressed to Mr. Roy Guarino, and also the Planning Board's letters of July 2 and July 23, 1979, and the Zoning Board of Appeals' letters of July 13, 1979 and May 11, 1979. First, with respect to the question of NB Zoning of the Guarino property. I assume that this is the parcel which backs up to Sprout Creek. I am not sure exactly why the decision was made to reduce the extent of NB Zoning on his property, but I do know that a portion of the rear of his land was indicated as being "flood prone" in the Master Plan and on the Zoning Map. At any rate, I do know that it wasn't a drawing error on the current map - it has been shown the same way on all previous versions of the proposed new zoning map prepared since 1974. If you would like, I could visit the site and prepare a recommendation with respect to the most appropriate location of the NB District boundary. With or without such an opinion from me, we could, however, if you so desire, prepare a revised map with the zoning lines drawn in whatever way the Town Board wants. Please let me know what you would like done in this regard. With respect to the Planning Board's letter of July 20, 1979, I have the following comments: (1) I do not agree with the suggested elimination of the reference to Section 281 of the Town Law under Section 411.9 on page 23. Section 281 I believe is the only section of the Town La,�%, that would allow the Town Board to grant the Planning Board this type of flexibility and, therefore, the reference to it should remain. Furthermore, contrary to the Planning Board's comment, the reference to Section 281 would not take away any of their flexibility. 0 C��� . a. �, Frederick P. Clark Associatas Wappinger Town Board Page 2 July 30, 1979 (2) I also do not agree with the Planning Board's suggestions for changes on pages 45 and 73 designed to give the^ fina 1 approval authority over site plans prepared as a part of special pewit applications to the Zoning Board. We specifically set up the Planning_ Board's review of such plans as being "advisory on!-,-" so that a double approval would not be required of each such applicant. In other words, I do not think it is reasonable, nor is it appropriate, to require an applicant for a special permit to have to obtain final approval on a site plan from the Planning Board and then final approval on the special permit from the Zoning Board; the Zoning Board action_ s::oald ir_corpo-rate both approvals. if this were not the case, not cnly would tiro time-consuming processes be required (including two separate public hearings, since the Planning Board recon -:=rids such a requirement on page 2 of their letter), it is also conceivable that the two Boards could impose conflicting recair—nts. (3) I have no objection to the Planning Board's suggested charge to Section 450.2 on page 73. (4) I also have no objection to the Planning Board's suggested char.Q_e to the first paragraph of Section 450.3, except that I belie -:e they inadvertently omitted the following wording- after the reference to "15 -day review period" in the fifth lire thereo=: "...for the receipt of their recommendations. %-t the end of the 15 -day review period,...". (5) The next major recommendation of the Planning Bcard involves the addition of two new Sections, 450.5 and 450.6, requiring the scheduling of a public hearing on all site plan applications. If the Planning Board wants to require such a public hearing in each case, that is fine. However, this is neither the Glace nor the way to do it. The new sections would conflict with the 45 -day time limit of Section 450.3 and the 15 -day review period for comments by other agencies, also as provided in 450.3. In addition, the proposed new sections are out of place where they have been located. Specifi- cally, I would suggest that Section 450.3 needs to be revised, the public hearing requirements should be moved up to 450.4, 450.4 should be changed to 450.5, and all of these sections should be carefully reviewed and revised as necessary to mare them consistent and avoid conflicts. If the Town Board desires, I could amend this entire section for you to incorporate the basic objectives expressed by the Planning Board. With respect to the Planning Board's supplementary letter of July 23, 1979, I have no objection to the change suggested there providing the wording of item 19 in the list of permitted principal uses in Section 421 is used to replace the wording which they objected to in item 7 of the 1_1-2-. District and item 2 in the PI-lA District of Section 422. ft Frederick P. Clark Associates Wappinger Town Board Page 3 July 30, 1979 With respect to the Zoning Board of Appeals' letter of July 13, 1979, I have the following comments: (1) Okay. We could provide additional clarification of the definition of "family", if desired. (2) It was certainly not the intent to include "victory garden" within the definition of "farm use". Farm use really was intended to refer to a principal use of a property, whereas a victory garden would be an "accessory use". I would suggest that the best way to clarify this would be to amend the Schedule of Regulations for Residential Districts, Section 421, so as to add the following additional accessory uses. "11. Garden, not over 1/2 acre in area". (3) I do not believe it was intended to exclude the sale of stock frcm greenhouses. Therefore, permitted principal use 13 in Section 421 should be amended to make reference to the sale of flowers and plants from greenhouses. (4) I agree with the Zoning Board's suggested change to the definiticn of "Public Garage". (5) Where words are not specifically defined in the Zoning Ordinance, they would carry their customary, dictionary meaning. If desired, we could add a definition of "day nursery" or "nursery school", or alternatively we could leave it as is. With respect to the Zoning Board letter of May 11, 1979, I have no objection to adding a minimum lot size requirement of one acre for nursery schools in R-15 and R-20 zones. Also, if you wish, we could review the other permitted uses in residential zones in terms of recommending minimum lot acreages for some of them. Concerning all of the above comments and suggestions, plus any others that the Town Board may have received, I would be pleased to be able to assist in any way that I can. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. I will take no further action until I hear back from you. Sincerely, avid J. Po man DJP:crc cc: Nick Johnson Town Board PO Box 324 Wappingers Falls, Gentlemen: N.Y. 12590 29 Tor Road Wappingers,Falls, RECEIVED 'JUL 31 1979 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN New York 12590 I am a licensed amateur radio operator and have been a Town of Wappinger resident and taxpayer since 1965. 1 applaud the foresight and planning you have shown in the preparation and adoption of the new zoning ordinance for the Town of Wappinger. There are, however, a few claudes which adversely affect radio amateurs. The Amateur Radio Service has a long history of scientific experiment and public service both in th4Scountry and abroad. In times of disaster, radio -amateurs have frequently provided the only means of communication between the disaster area and the outside world. U.S. Amateurs have frequently been part of that communication link during earthquakes, floods and shipwrecks, both in the United States and overseas. The radio amateurs in- the Town of Wappinger are willing and able to maintain this tradition of public service but to do so we need to raise our antennas as high as possible. Item 414.1 of the zoning ordinance limits antenna height to 20 feet above the roof line. Since the Federal Communication Commission and the Federal Aviation Authority already regulate antenna height, I respectfully request that radio amateur antennas be granted exemption from this ordinance. One other item which I fear may be used to the disadvantage of radio amateurs is item 483-7. Electromagnetic Interference. I welcome any assistance you can give the overworked FCC in controlling such interference. However, what is generally referred to asQ interference comes about in two ways. Firstly it arises becJ011 7" — 2 — some device generates and illegally transmits radio signals at frequencies that the receiver is tuned to. But secondly it is caused because a receiver receives legal transmissions at frequencies it is not tuned to. This form of interference is due to a problem in the receiver and frequently occurs in receivers regarded as "normal"• While radio amateurs try to cooperate fully with their neighT er to overcome this problem, to penalize a legally operating transmitter because of a faulty receiver is grossly unfair. I therefore respect— fully request that all licensed pr_d 1e;�17y operated radio transmitters be exempted from this ordinance. Yours truly, Keith A. Duke WA2SVN 47 carrior) Street; To: Town Board NTY f OF MANNING Osie; new York 12601 485-9890 Referral: 79-186 Town of Wappinger Tax Map Parcel No. Various RECEIVED AUG 3 1979 Re: Zoning Amendments FIAINF H. SNOWDEN In accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law (Article 12B, Sections 239-1 and 239-m), the Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed subject referral with regard to pertinent inter -community and county -wide considerations. Upon field investigation and analysis, this Department makes the following findings and recommendations: 1. The application proposes that land along the west side of Route 9D, north of Chelsea Road be rezoned to a neighborhood business zone from the multi -family residential zone (R -MF -5). This area, comprising tax parcel 6056-02-635539, consists of two acres of land. This Depart- ment recommends that the decision in this matter is primarily of local concern and should be based upon local study of the facts. 2. It is proposed that land on the northwest corner of Route 9 and Middlebush Road be rezoned from the Highway Business HB -2A zoning designation to a Highway Business HB -IA zone. This section includes approximately 13 acres of land in tax parcels: 6157-02-610920, 6157- 02-604953 and 6157-02-578955. The primary difference between these two zones is the minimum lot size; two acres is the minimum require- ment in the HB -2A zone and one acre is required in the HB-lA district. These lands are adjacent to an HB -1A zone on the west side of Route 9. This Department recommends that the decision in this matter is primarily of local concern and should be based upon local study of the facts in the case. 3. The subject application proposes that land on both sides of Route 9, between Fowlerhouse Road and Osborne Hill Road, be rezoned from the existing Residential R-20 zone to a Highway Business HB -2A district. This proposal includes the following properties: Referral #79-186 Page 2 Tax Property Map # 6157-04-599136 600170 590180 582220 743178 636239 639251 627257 This proposal to rezone more land along Route 9 from residential to commercial would adversely impact the character of this major roadway. It would provide an excess of commercially zoned land which would erode the existing commercial enterprises in the community. This Department recommends that the rezoning of these properties from R-20 to HB -2A be disapproved. 4. This application includes a proposal to rezone land on the east side of Route 9, south of Old Hopewell Road, from Office Research OR -10A to a Highway Business HB -2A zone for a depth of 300 feet. The follow- ing properties are included: Tax Property Map # 6157-02-641504 6157-04-604495, 603472 638394 633424 623465 618490 The Office Research district was established to provide land to develop an employment base for the Town. The Office Research district would also be an alternative to strip commercial zoning. This Department recommends disapproval of this rezoning to HB -2A. Sufficient land in the Town is zoned for highway business, additional zoning of this nature would further erode the viability of existing commercial centers. 5. The application proposes that land south of Old Hopewell Road, east of Route 9, and certain lands 300' east of Route 9 be rezoned to OR -1A from the existing OR -10A district. This includes properties 6157-02-637535, 6157-02-659528 and 6157-02-684525 as well as parts of 6157-02-641504, 6157-04-618490, 6157-04-623465, 6157-04-633424 and 6157-04-638394. Referral #79-186 Page 3 This proposal is related to that of #4, above. This area is the only section along Route 9 currently zoned for Office Research uses. This application, if approved, would erode the viability of this district and destroy the concept of setting aside an area on this major arterial of sufficient size to attract offices and research type land uses. These uses would be preferable to the proliferation of commercial uses in a strip type of development along the entire length of Route 9 in the Town. This Department recommends disapproval of this rezoning from OR -10A to OR-lA. The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base its decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or procedures enumerated in subject zoning action. Dated: August 2, 1979 Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner Dutchess County Dept. of Planning By fj,114� & �*k Richard Birch, Senior Planner August 3rd, 1979 Ms. Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk Town of Wappinger Wappinger Falls, N. Y. 12590 Dear Ms Snowden: RL IC E I V e 0 AUG 6 1979 ELAINE N. SNOWDEN Hsing Yang & Linda Huang RDl 9W South Marlboro, N, Y. 1254`2 I would like to request an item for the Agdnda of your next. Town Board meeting on Aug. 13th, 1979. This item concerns the zo- ning change of my property on Route 9 ( The Sunset Knolls ) I would like to discuss this problem with the Town Board. Your favorable consideration in this matter woukd be greatly appreciated. cc `L-/ Aj glb/>9 Very truly yours, Hsing Yang Huang & Linda Huang Owner -of the Sunset Knolls. 's August 3rd, 1979 Ms. Blaine H. Snowden, Town Cleric Town of Wappinger Wappinger Falls, N. Y. 12590 Dear Ms. Snowden: REC_EIVED AUG 6 1979 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN Hsing Yang & linda Huang RDI 9W South Marlboro, N. Y. 12542 I would like to request an item for the Agenda of your next Town Board meeting on Aug. 13th, 1979. This item concerns the zo- ning change of my property on Route 9 ( The Sunset Knolls) I would like to discuss this problem with Town Board. Your favorable consideration in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly Yours, As ng 7aiKg Hu7 Linda Huang Owner of the Sunset Knolls. 7 August 6, 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Ladies and Gentlemen: I hereby request that a Public Hearing be scheduled for the purpose of considering the return, to the same extent, the zoning that was designated by the Town Board in 1972 of my property on All Angels Hill Rd., which was subsequently changed on the Zoning Map of the Town of Wappinger July 9, 1979 RECEIVED AUG 6 1979 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, r j,j.!� ;z., t 419 C RECEIVE[) J UL. 3 1979 ELAINE H, SNOWDEN RESOLUTION ADOPTING ZONING ORDINANCE Tha following Resolution was introduced by Councilman who :roved its adoption: '=4—HRM%5 an application was made to the Town Board of the Ton o f Wappinger by Roy 0. Guarino and Lawrence Pereira for a razoning of a parcel of land in the Town of Wappinger located on Roue 82, and 4 WdE EAS said application was referred to the Dutchess County Planning Board and the Town of Wappinger Planning Board, and '%v". iMEAS the Town of Wappinger Planning Board reported to the Town Board on April 4th, 1972, that it favors said change as t=Q clange would be in conformity with other existing us83 in the area, and tivl�i=MXAS the County Planning Board ��� :%pril 26th, 1972, reported to the Town Board oma= the Town of Wappinger that it opposed j said zoning change on the ground that said site is part of the flood plan of the Sprout Creek, and a TAI'MZ S the 'roam Rdard of the Town of Wappinger introduced a public hearing on dune 12th, 1972, and such public hearing Was il held on that date after due notice to the Town of East Fishkill and no one appeared at said public hearing in opposition to said zoning chan�3s, NVOW T,40 EFORE, BE IT 3 MILL STREET TOWN OF WAPP1 NGER SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPERVISOR July 3, 1979 Mr. Roy Guarino BOX 21 Hopewell Junction, New York 12533 k.`hP?:P:G ERS FALLS. N. Y 12$90 RE: Your letter of objection to new proposed z3 inc Dear Roy: Increasing your frontage on Route 82 is an excellent decision business wise, plus your area directly across All A_ncels highway (gas station and food market) blends .jour land. as a productive commercial venture. I have no problem, as I am familiar with the site and location surrounding COT-ercial property. Your letter of 7/2/79 has been forwarded to Councilwoman Janet Reilly and Councilman Nick Johnson, who are on the committee on zoning for review and future action on individual problems, corrections or errors if such was overlooked. I would recommend you request a Public Hearing on your individual objections. I am recommending the same procedure in a number of other cases. I personally feel that you will receive fair judgement. As you know, this new proposed zoning has been -worked on for the past many years, with input of thousands of ours by concerned groups and individuals to update the old 1963 Ordinance and Map. There is no doubt that errors or misjudgemen-s ha=ve been made in some cases and they must be addressed on an individual basis to resolve. 31- :,Z R-4 4-i 101-1A R-40 R-80 P 0. q Sept. 25, 1979 Mr. Lanny M. Katz Ecolociences, Inc. P.O. Box 245 20 Union Street Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 Dear Mr. Katz: The enclosed agreement with your firm and the Town of Wappi.nger was approved by the Town Board at a Special Meeting on August 27, 1979. Please sign o4*inal and one copy and return both to this office= two copies can be retained by your firm. Yours truly, Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk gr encs. Iptition for Our ProT,,�i-ty coning Cha,i,,c,,e Sertemb(;r 11,1, 1'x79 Ms. Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk Town Hall Town of Wappinger Wappingers Falls, N. Y. 12590 Dear Ms. Snowden: RECEIVED SEP 12 1979 ELAINE H. SNOWpEN J-1,9inp Yaip &- Lind, -i Sunset Kiolls, Route 9 1'alls, 1'.Y. 12500 e ne�,� zoitin�)- v rroi, the tpv ProT)Prty 0,, :")'Ate 9. 1,T Pronf�rtv, located on !t(-)utr- q ncr-os"s from the Old ','oi,e -i,- 1 1 f e Mier. I is a central concentration area of bu�;i-zi-9s of ijoi)tF- Q iii the Towr of �.v 1-,r.-perty is 4 0 1111)1 for 27 �j n 11 f )+ 1 oo C, !-pl. and mollymo�)il- holno f01-2'7 Ve," A, �ol-I and iice�,seclk by the 3'tatp colln-tv '11.1. TITOr."If Gy tv has raid commercial r e r value of ,ns��,�;nll�nt thn Haat three (30c,-(109 d �j `rF of two hundrr:d Fovr>nt.v thousand ('Jolla.r-s oll' f, ,i x 4-hC- 197q, to the ovin of '.Jap-nin� Er letter to the Town j-,02r:.� from the Town aqrQsor -,J,-Io recomqien0c to my iliess vone) I boll,,Ilt thin I-)rO','-rtv i?I"l z0f,�i to tel !)usino-"•'� nn '.--v r -i -, for t1lis commercial 1nn(I sn�l ar, willin;,: to build a beautiful mote 1 r replace the old ugly and slum -looking houses. Unfortunately only one month later in June, I noticed the new proposal of the zoning change, to change my property zone from original HB1 to the so called "OR10" ( office and research 10 acres). I do not want to critize the ridiculous so called "OR1011, but it presents a diffi- cult situation on this commercial property and it would jeopardize the opportunity for business development of both the owners and the Town of Wappinger. During the public hearing on June 26th, 1979, Mr. T:n ;is Diehl, the Chairmen of that public hearing and supervisor of the Town of Wappinger, answered my complaint and reconized that it is an error of the line in the new zoning �r- oposal map, that my property is not changed as OR10. and a�. ?; :e same time, Me. Janet Reilly, the councilwoman of the Planing Board also pointed out the same with Mr. Louis Diehl (both Mr. Diehl and Ms. Reilly answers were recorded there was also a let- ter sent from Mr. Dieh al to the Town Board on June 28, 1979, which very clearly mentioned this error, also 1,";ere were a lot of witnesses who heard that answer such as my Attorney Mr. Fer- gament and Mr. Charles Gumpert, the former owner of this proper- ty). Thus, it is very clear that my -property should still be an FB1 zone. Unfortunately, I noticed at the hearing on Jta7.v NAh, 1979, the amendment of the new zoning change would , ,� ,:'.ole property of 3.27 acres into two pieces, from the fra_- .t% e of Route 9 only 300 feet depth as HB2, the remainder - ORI. Like this cut, the front land Ls not enough to meet the HB2 zoning requirement, which still would not be able to do any business 2 r. as a result of this amendment. I would ask that your Town Board consider t_; =.,,e a fair - adjustment for this difficulty business property. I hope that the policy of the Town is willing to put more business on the fr- ontage of route 9. Before you :aevelope new business, 1-owever do not destroy the existing business we have already. "e principle of this new zoning change should give equal rights a-ind opportuni- ties to all of the owners of those properties on the frontage of Route 9. Do not put the people into different classes, some lucky owners get their whole piece of land, 10 zc-res and thousand feet depth, which has become business zone from their original woods, rock and flood land. Other people, like my land have only 300 feet depth for business. This would produce difficult condition for existing business and would jeopardize the future for business development in the Town of Wappinger. I love the Town of Wappinger and I respect all of the mem- bers of both Town Board and Town Planning 7oard. As a new inves- tor of the Town of Wappinger, I need your encouragement, your help and your suFrort. Thank ,you vr. •:v irA.ch. 3 Respectfully yours, A Hsing ang 8:__ nda Au Owners of the Sunset Knolls. EcolSciences, inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES Eastern Region • P.O. Box 245 • 20 Union Street • Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 (201) 627-5726 August 24, 1979 Town of Wappinger C/O Mr. Nicholas Johnson 16 Gabriella Drive Wappinger, New York 12590 Dear Mr. Johnson: In accordance with our discussions and correspondence received from Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, Attorneys at Law, EcolSciences has prepared this proposal for pro- viding environmental consultation on the subject of the proposed zoning ordinance for the Town of Wappinger. EcolSciences will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the requirements of Part 617.12 and Part 617.14 of the Environmental Conservation Law 8-0113, amended September 1978. On the subject of alternatives, as outlined in Part 617.14 (f)(5), EcolSciences will only consider "No Action," and the proposed action. In general, primary and secondary impact analysis in this Draft EIS will be restricted to those elements of the zoning ordinance proposed for change. The costs for this work are not to exceed $1,593.00, and does not include participation in any public hearings deemed necessary by the town board. If EcolSciences par- ticipation at public hearings is requested such activity will be billed on a time and expenses basis. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Lanny M. Katz, Ph.D. LMK/dm Enc 1. Corporate Office. South Bend. Indiana Mid Atlantic Region. Vienna, Virginia Southeast Region Raleigh, North Carolina , Midwest Region. South Bend Indiana _ Ecolftiences inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES Eastern Region • 1 Bank Street 0 Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 (201)627-5726 A G R E E M E N T This Agreement is made this day of in this year 1979 between the Town of Wappinger and EcolSciences, inc. Services to Be Performed EcolSciences, inc. will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with Part 617 of the Environmental Conservation Law, amended September, 1978. Compensation This Agreement is a cost -plus -fixed -fee contract. The total cost is estimated to be $1,593.00 (in which a fixed profit in set at $266.00). Method of Payment EcolSciences, inc. will submit one invoice requesting payment. Payment shall be made to EcolSciences, inc. for the full amount of the invoice within thirty days of receipt of the invoice by the Town of Wappinger. Corporate Office: South Bend, Indiana Mid -Atlantic Region: Vienna, Virginia North Central Region: Milwaukee, Wisconsin Midwest Region: South BE -rid, Indiana IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto affix their signatures and seals in attestation of the foregoing. ATTEST ATTEST August 24, 1979 m EcolSciences, inc. 1 Bank Street Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 Peter R. Sp nney Regional Manager ®EcoiSciences, inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES Eastern Region • 1 Bank Street • Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 (201) 627-5726 December 5, 1979 Ms. Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, N. Y. 12590 Re: SEQR Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Wappinger Dear Mrs. Snowden: RFCEIVFp 9EU `i 1979 ELAINE N. SNOWDEN In fulfillment of EcolSciences' agreement with the Town of Wappinger, we are pleased to present to the Town five (5) copies of the environmental impact statement which reviews (in accordance with N. Y. SEQR) the re- vised zoning ordinance for the Town. If you or your representative have any questions on either the analyti- cal procedures or the conclusions of this review, please contact me or Louise Palagano at (201) 627-5726. This has been an interesting project for our staff, and we look forward to being of service to the Town of Wappinger in the future. Sincerely, Peter R. Spinney Regional Manager <�� PRS/df Enc 1. Corporate Office: South Bend, Indiana• Mid -Atlantic Region: Vienna, Virginia North Central Region: Milwaukee, Wisconsin • Midwest Region: South Bend, Indiana CHARLES J. CORBALLY (1966) JOHN J. GARTLAND, JR. RICHARD V. CORBALLY ALLAN E. RAPPLEYEA DANIEL F. CURTIN`' FRED W. SCHAEFf ::R JON HOLDEN ADAMS MICHAEL G. GARTLAND VINCENT L. DEBIASE PAUL O. SULLIVAN+ JOSEPH F. HAWKINS COUNSEL +MEMBER N. Y. AND FLORIDA BAR CORBALLY, GARTLAND AND RAPPLEYEA , lttmtttt o anb 4mmvlirra at T BARDAVON BUILDING 35 MARKET STREET POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK 12601 914-454-1110 December 13, 197; Nicholas Johnson, Town Councilman Town of Wappinger Town Mall Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Dear Councilman Johnson: FLCRIDA C.FFICE: 50 SCJTH BELCHER FZ%.::: SUI -DING =. SUITE 122 CLE=RWATER, FLORIDA 335 5 513.461-3144 BRA'ICH O=FICE 5A1.1 OF 1-tiLLB':J_K EJ;L='NG RA.':KLIN AVE. MIL_3ROO(., NEW Y RK .25-5 It is my understanding that the environmen_a= impact state- ment (draft) for the revised zoning ordinance o= _'ie o�an has been delivered to the town. Under the appiicab_e regulations, the town must cause to be affixed to it a cover sheet containing certain information, and I have taken the liber -y o` preparing such a cover sheet to be affixed to the cover. Enclosed find the same. The Town Board, after review of the impact s_a_e=ent, must decide whether or not to accept the same. If sc, a formal resolution should be adopted accepting the sarne and further providing for public comment on the same. I Y -ave _aken the liberty of preparing such a resolution and also enclose that. It is also necessary that the Town Clerk g_ve no --ice to certain agencies and officials as to the receipt of the draft final impac statement, and upon her request, I will be happy _o provide tha_ information. JHA/lh Encs. Very t COR LLY�, F Jon den *L �'; YEA Ada: -s CHARLES J. CORBALLY (1966) JOHN J. GARTLAND, JR. RICHARD V. CORBALLY ALLAN E. RAPPLEYEA DANIEL F. CURTIN+ FRED W. SCHAEFFER JON HOLDEN ADAMS MICHAEL G. GARTLAND VINCENT L. DEBIASE PAUL O. SULLIVAN+ CORBALLY, GARTLAND AND RAPPLEYEA Affm ut # ntb ( =Wfln o atIts& BARDAVON BUILDING 35 MARKET STREET POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK 12601 914-454-1110 December 21, 1979 JOSEPH F. HAWKINS COUN5EL +MEMBER N.Y. AND FLORIDA BAR Elaine Snowden, Town Clerk Town of Wappinger Town Hall Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Elaine: FLORIDA OFFICE: 50 SOUTH BELCHER ROAD BUILDING E. SUITE 122 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33515 813-461-3144 BRANCH OFFICE. BANK OF MILLBROOK BUILDING FRANKLIN AVE. MILLBROOK, NEW YORK 12545 P!'CE:IVE D U k U 26 1979 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN If you are not already aware, the draft environmental impact statement, when it is adopted by the town board, must be filed and made available for copying with the following individuals or agencies: Commissioner of Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York Department of Environmental Conservation Putt's Corners Road New Paltz, New York Louis D. Diehl, Supervisor In addition, you may want to review our local law on the statement of environmental quality review act. There may be additional provisions in there. If you have any questions, please advise me. Very truly yours, CORB LLY,_GARTLAND & RAPPLEYEA t JHA/lh Jon Holden Adams CORBALLY, GARTLAND AND RAPPLEYEA Elaine Snowden, Town Clerk Page - 2 - December 21, 1979 P.S.. Enclosed find a sample of a notice which could be advertised in the paper in the .first edition following the acceptance of the draft environmental impact statement by the Town Board. JHA DRAFT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a draft environmental impact statement has been received by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger on the subject of its proposed comprehensive amendment to its zoning ordinance. draft A copy of such/environmental impact statement is available at the office of the Town Clerk, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, NewYork. Residents of the Town of Wappinger are invited to submit comments in writing as to the draft environmental impact statement to the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, said written comments to be submitted in legible form no later thanp�ri�Qrc.� M. OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS, N. Y. 12590 Ta. 297.6256 January 29, 1980 Town Board Town of Wappinger Town Hall, Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Dear Members of the Town Board: In reviewing the proposed Zoning Ordinance I have discovered several serious omissions, additions and/or changes that will, if not addressed, cause a great deal of confusion in enforcement on my part. Under Section 200 - Definitions a. Basement: The definition as written is similar to the definition of a "cellar" in the New York State Building Code and under the Code, "no habitable space shall be located in a cellar". (Code Section A 202-3). This will cause a problem if the basement space is used to calculate "floor area gross" as in the new Ordinance definitions, or used as part of "Minimum livable floor area" under Section 418 of the Ordinance. b. Junk Yard: I feel the addition of the 6 month criteria in establishing a junk yard use will cause many problems. The 1963 Ordinance did not have the 6 month rule and I feel it would be better to remove it from the proposed Ordinance. As Zoning Administrator I would have to photo or otherwise document the possible violation over a long period of time and I feel this may result in many "temporary - but legal" junk yards. Incidently "junk yards" are not listed as permitted under any district, where as under the 1963 Ordinance they were permitted by Special Use Permit in the GI district. Under Section 422: I would interpret the various permitted uses as listed to prohibit any residential uses(except motels or tourists homes) in the GB, HB-l(acre), HB-2(acres) districts, which is exactly opposite what is permitted under the 1963 Ordinance. I would interpret that under the proposed Ordinance, all residential uses are permitted under OR-10(acres) and OR-1(acre) which again OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TOWN OF WAPPINGER Town Board Members TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS, N. Y. 12590 TXL. 227-6206 -2- January 29, 1980 is exactly opposite what is permitted under the present Ordinance. AI(2 acres) and PI(1 acre) remain the same as to prohibiting residential uses. Section 404.421: The proposed Ordinance omits the fence setback of 50 feet, as required under Section 416.062 a, of the 1963 Ordinance. I feel some indication of a setback should be included in the new Ordinance or existing junk yards may be able to move their fencing to the actual property line, shich will cause zoning problems. I know of no conforming junk yards in the Town as of this date and expect therefore no new non -conforming junk yard upon adoption of this proposed Ordinance. Under Section 421: I can forsee possible interpretation and enforcement problems due to the fact that mention of "motor vehicles" and especially the limitation "not to exceed more than one commercial licensed vehicle" (as listed under Section 421 of the 1963 Ordinance) is not listed in the proposed Ordinance. I have had many complaints concerning commercial vehicles in residential areas, as well as complaints concerning large numbers of motor vehicles parked on residential properties. Under the proposed Ordinance, I am not even sure motor vehicles are permitted by the way paragraph 2 under assessory uses is written. I cannot find any other mention of permitting or limiting motor vehicles in the proposed Ordinance except under the definition "junk yard". Under Section 418: I am concerned by the word "livable" and would personally interpret it to mean a space which meets all State and local requirements of possible "habitable" space, but at the time of the building permit application, may not be all submitted as finished area, i.e. an unfinished basement could be used in combination with the finished floor area submitted to reach the minimum livable floor area requirement. When I look for definitions of "usable floor area" or "minimum livable floor area", the only close definition is "floor area, gross" but under that definition areas such as "basements or unfinished floor area having a clear head room of less than seven (7) feet" are used in the calculation of gross floor area, but could not be used for livable (or habitable) floor area because the New York State Building Code requires a minimum of seven feet six inches (716") height. I feel some clarification would be helpful. Other Under a. less "serious" items I have discovered include: Section 200: Definitions Arts and Crafts Occupation - although definition is in this OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS, N. Y. 12590 T11L. 227.0256 Town Board Members -3- January 29, 1980 section, there is no other reference to this use. I would assume "Arts and Crafts Occupatiort'should be added under Home Occupations in the definition section and/or under Section 421, Permitted Acessory Uses. Under Section 444.4: "(14) lots" should be "(14) days" Under Section 514: Subsection 11514.2" is listed as "414.2" Under Section 522.1: Present requirements are that five(5) copies of a plot plan be submitted on new residential construction, to meet the Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer requirements (as directed in Town of Wappinger Highway Specifications, page 17) and the two(2) plot plans only when additions, garages and other "minor" building permits are required, since they do not get sent to the Highway or Engineer's office. General: The use of the words "Zoning Inspector" and "Zoning Administrator" should be standardized to Zoning Administrator in all cases. I would be pleased to answer any questions or discuss any aspects of the items I have brought to your attention or any other aspects of the proposed Ordinance. The Ordinance will, after all, only be as good as the enforcement of it is. Res ectfull , Hans R. Gu derud Building Inspector & Zoning Administrator HRG/dlh THE=� r DUTCH $COUNTY DEPA ENT OF PIANNING 47 cannon street; poughkeepsie; new York 12600 485-9890 January 31, 1980 Elaine H. Snowden Wappinger Town Clerk Mill Street Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 Re: DEIS - 1979 Comprehensive Revision of Zoning Ordinance Dear Ms. Snowden: We thank you for the opportunity to review the above -referenced document. The following comments are submitted for your consideration: Section I - NEED AND PURPOSE The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Wappinger recognizes the important relationship between the Town Development Plan and the Town Zoning Ordinance. This section provides an informative discussion on the goals and policies of the adopted Town Plan and the fact that the zoning should be implemented in accordance with the Town Plan. Section III - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A major flaw in this section of the Draft EIS is the failure to address the adverse impacts of an excess of commercially zoned land and, more specifically, an excess of land zoned for strip pattern commercial uses. Some of the impacts of strip development are noted on Page 19. The importance of the Town Develop- ment Plan as a framework for the zoning ordinance is also stressed. The Town Development Plan recommends limiting commercial areas to existing centers of commercial activity while allowing land for expansion of these areas. Despite the disparity between the recommendations of the Town Develop- ment Plan and the proposed zoning ordinance as regards commercial land, the Draft EIS does not provide an adequate discussion of the issue. The potential impact of a large excess of commercially zoned land on existing commercial centers or the community as a whole is not evaluated. It is recommended that the following amendments be considered for this section of the Draft EIS: Page 13. Paragraph 2 should take into consideration the fact that Area 5B, along Route 9D, is already developed as an apartment complex; Page 2 Page 18. Table 1 and the appropriate section of the text should consider the proposed extension of the Neighborhood Business Zone along Route 9D; Page 19. Paragraph 1 states that Area 4B is commercially developed, this should be amended as there is no commercial use at the site. Section V - ALTERNATIVES This section does not adequately address the issue of commercial zoning. Alternatives to commercial zoning are addressed in the Town Development Plan but alternatives are absent from this section of the Draft EIS. Section VII - GROWTH -INDUCING AGENTS The first sentence of this section mentions numerous areas which, if developed in accordance with the proposed zoning, would have a growth -inducing influence on the Town. However, land identified as Areas 2A, 4A, 5B, and 9 would not necessarily have a significant impact on the Town because they are already developed at varying residential densities. Section VIII - PROPOSED ACTION ON USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY This section fails to take into consideration the mechanisms provided in the proposed zoning ordinance that encourage energy efficient residential develop- ment. Section 411.9 of the proposed zoning provides for Average Density Subdivisions and Conservation Subdivisions. These land development mechanisms provide an opportunity for cluster development and the use of energy-saving site planning techniques. Section 425 permits Planned Unit Development Districts through which developers can combine various land uses in a more efficient pattern of land development. Thank you for your consideration. our office. JLC, RB/cs If there are any questions, please contact Sincerely, Jeffrey L. Churchill Deputy Commissioner TOWN OF WAPPINGER W RECEIVED CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL FEB4 !980 MILL STREET WAPPINGERS FALLS, NEW YORK 12590 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN February 4, 1980 Town Board Town Of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 Re: Environmental Review Of The Zoning Ordinance For The Town Of Wappinger Dear Board Members: Following the regular January meeting of the Advisory Council we wish to file the following comments on the re-ferenced Environ- mental Impact Statement. The consensus of the Council is that the Impact Statement does not adequately analize the evironmental con- siderations in those areas where changes to zoning are proposed. In addition we list the following concerns; 1) The summary and conclusions section are contradictory for example, "Implementation of the proposed ordinance will have unavoidable adverse environmental impacts" and "thus based on the comprehensiveness, the absence of irreversible impacts." 2) Page 7, Goal 4 - There is no environmental analysis to support policies A and B. 3) Page 8, Goal 5 - Seems to be irrevelant an4 not supported by analysis. , 4) Page 9 and 10 - Definitions as such do not add substance to an ordinance. They merely define terms and do not impart philosophy. 5) Page 11 - The environmental setting is too broad in def- inition and does nct discuss soil types, bedrock, and wetlands, nor are they correlated with fig -.res 1 thru 4. Made from 1001c Recycled Paper r Page 2. 6) Page 12 - The prime agricultural soils are not defined nor located. 7) Page 21 - The alternatives are not adequately addressed. This paragraph seems to attempt to justify the proposed ordinance. 8) Page 27 - The proposed changes will certainly have a direct impact on energy use and cannot be dismissed with such a simple statement. It is our concern that this impact statement seems to justify the proposed ordinance without truly considering major environmental factors. C- 4qJ 6 EH/mmcc Sincerely,, Edward S. Hawksley Chairman N.4 (13AGD38 2 — UuAUJI ,(Tj_4t�+`'' -�.-.�.--._._._.�;�,..r.:Lr+'1/'1.,�7e•��Y1�+ehl,f,C�,_i`-_'�`��a�i, �".''�,�,.�;�t C �?; f"1.�yn,'Cf..�F' �, �_ �lv<�'�i/�__ f � .. w —. _�_'ne^.-�-� --- ..�< s�----.--�.' 8' L,r,`c; '•,�,. s;.�'. .. ted'-"bL2.r,,. �.,:':�„�.�-.-ri./«.`'�"�_ �_ �r�:;. A4 t� • - '' "�..wL+�'.�Pi�:ikl�i+N�y.,�>�v 14 . _ �.��'�.,. __.f sr.3 ��..�/�,d:•M.^4.'M^Y. r _ _ � A��' 's. 4.-.._�. �:p .�^^�..'.'°' "`R'"°:�w,�.4L- �V�}....._—_--_—.—.. IA f /i f' s dr` t l ! ial w"�•t�, 4-. _!.'G"F«� at �t—t,w . r`4'r a6 t.,�._�i.�f _ _ 111jjj t %m a F - — - ---- -____.__ _. __ ..__-'�-t,T(("'_"___� �^ "`,.r�•.�„ � -.._ �.�'�_.. � % `tiRs�.,e.4'Y`�.:u°Lrz.P _ . _�`�..i�b�!w,... L'�'.,�'� �`•'��_��_ _ A —4 Al )i A 60 ell— zt, OL 01 k . if - --. --- -4, low— ° 91 � �---------- � 44, 17L IL ~. ~ In m ^ � � w"'Um pw,d 149 o v4W.EcolSciences, inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES Eastern Region • 1 Bank Street • Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 (201) 627-5726 March 6, 1980 Mr. Nicholas Johnson Town Councilman Town of Wappinger Wappinger Falls, New York 12590 Dear Mr. Johnson: In reviewing "An environmental review of the zoning ordinance for the Town of Wappinger, New York," we feel a need to revise the statement in the summary and conclusions which begin "implementation of the proposed ordinance..." For clarification purposes, the following words should be deleted: "Implementation of the proposed ordinance will have unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts, although..." The revised statement which is now to be inserted should read as follows: "The proposed zoning changes reflect environmental considerations and mitigating measures. An example of miti- gation (within the zoning ordinance) that will minimize the adverse affects of development impacts is the intent of down - zoning an area where there exists significant amounts of steeply sloping lands, wetlands, or prime agricultural lands in order to protect these environmentally sensitive areas." The above review in no way changes the contents of the report as this statement is clearly a summation of the details pre- sented on pages 13 and 19. If you have any questions or comments concerning this review, please contact Louise M. Palagano at (201) 627-5726. We are presently in the process of reviewing other comments which will be forthcoming to you within the next three weeks. These in no way have any bearing on the above review. Sincerely, Peter R. Sp ney Regional Manager PRSdm Corporate Office: South Bend, Indiana � Mid -Atlantic Region: Vienna, Virginia North Central Region: Milwaukee, Wisconsin P Midwest Region: South Bend, Indiana SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The framework for the proposed zoning ordinance for the Town of Wappinger is the Town Development Plan adopted on February 11, 1974. The Plan elaborates on five goals that give careful consideration to numerous development alterna- tives for future growth in the Town. New definitions in the proposed ordinance and the expansion of them into additional provisions indicates that the proposed zoning ordinance is more comprehensive in nature than the existing ordinance. zoning -up, zoning -down, and changing the zoning character play an important role in the proposed ordinance. The trade-off between them, however, is well balanced and con- forms to both the intents of the development plan and en- vironmentally sound planning. The proposed zoning changes reflect environmental considerations and mitigating measures. An example of mitigation (within the zoning ordinance) that will minimize the adverse affects of development impacts is the intent of down -zoning an area where there exists sign- ificant amounts of steeply sloping lands, wetlands, or prime agricultural lands in order to protect these environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed ordinance includes mitigating measures which clearly indicate a distinct interest on behalf of the Town to address environmental concerns and to relieve or minimize the potential for adverse impacts. In analyzing the effects of up -zoning, the Town of Wappinger has carefully examined and considered such impacts and has chosen the alternative that best satisfies the needs of its community presently and in the future. TOWN OF WAPPINGER MILL STREET m•''I� Sirs: SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPERVISOR WAPPINGERS FALLS, N, Y. 12590 NEGATIVE DECLARATION March 17, 1980 Please take notice that on March 10, 1980, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, that town board, after reviewing a draft environmental impact statement together with comments thereupon, said draft environmental impact statement and comments addressed to the subject of the adoption of a zoning ordinance by the Town of Wappinger, a determination was made by resolution that the adoption of said ordinance would have no significant impact or effect on the environment. The name and address of the lead agency is the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York 12590. The name and address of the person who can provide further inform- ation is Louis D. Diehl, Town Supervisor, Town of Wappinger, Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York, 12590 (914-297-2744). The nature, extent and location of the action is the adoption of a compre- hensive land use or zoning ordinance affecting all the lands within the Town of Wappinger, said comprehensive zoning ordinance being an amendment to a previously existing comprehensive zoning ordinance orig- inally adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger on or about January 29, 1963. The location of the action is the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York. The reasons leading to the determination of the Town Board are set forth in the resolution of the board as well as those reasons cited in a summary contained in the draft environmental impact statement both of which are attached hereto. Yours truly, Louis D. Diehl Supervisor, Town of Wappinger List Z. :Zegio:;a1 Office of ?:.Y.S. Dept. Environmental Co.serva`ion 21 Fatt Corners, I.aw Paltz, N.Y. 12561 2. Commissioner, N. Y.5. Dept. Environmental Conse':vatic_^_ 50 Wolf R3., Albany, N.Y. 12233 3. Chairman of Municipal Cons. Adv. Council E. fla-aksley Dutchess County Dept. of Planning 47 Cannon St., Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12601 5. Chairman of the nun icipality's Planning Board Clerk of the Dutchess County Legislature Is. Joan Traver, County Office Bldg, 22 _;.arket St., Poughkeepsie, P.Y 7. Dutchess County Office of County Executive County Office Bldg., 22 Market St., Poug .: e,psi-, S. Dutchess County Environmental Management Council Box 259, Millbrook, N.Y. 12545 9}. Clerkof the Local Agency & Municipality Cler S : - ac'.= - To -:;n Clerk l�. other Agencies concerned with the proposed action - None at present r MILL STREET TOWN OF WAPPINGER Elaine H. Snowden, Town of Wappinger Mill St. Wappingers Falls, Sirs: SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPERVISOR Town Clerk N. Y. NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAPPINGERS FALLS. N. Y. 12590 March 17, 1980 Please take notice that on March 10, 1980, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, that town board, after reviewing a draft environmental impact statement together with comments thereupon, said draft environmental impact statement and comments addressed to the subject of the adoption of a zoning ordinance by the Town of Wappinger, a determination was made by resolution that the adoption of said ordinance would have no significant impact or effect on the environment. The name and address of the lead agency is the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York, 12590. The name and address of the person who can provide further inform- ation is Louis D. Diehl, Town Supervisor, Town of Wappinger, Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York, 12590 (914297-2744). The nature, extent and location of the action is the adoption of a compre- hensive land use or zoning ordinance affecting all the lands within the Town of Wappinger, said comprehensive zoning ordinance being an amendment to a previously existing comprehensive zoning ordinance orig- inally adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger on or about January 29, 1963. The location of the action is the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York. The reasons leading to the determination of the Town Board are set forth in the resolution of the board as well as those reasons cited in a summary contained in the draft enviornmental impact statement both of which are attached hereto. Yours truly, Loui Diehl Supervisor, Town of Wappinger At r -+_7'r ItIe� t`t iv if �lE zrrlfl tjc)'.>>El c��lEc7+rli1 Wappi nget on March 10 1980 man Johnson following resoly.It IOn �,�asA and seconded by councilwoman Rei llY WH`_t WHEREAS the own Board has bee -it f�s��..�<< d .n trl)" cn�asidetation of the adoption of ars amended comp ��=�3�s1� _ � �: � ���,i_tsg ordinance and map to supercede a comprehensive zo3t i r, -c�- ' .-Pauce and map previously adopted by it on or ab®ur_. 29, 1953, as further amended from time to time, and WHEREAS pursuant to the prc , is {-on } of Article 3 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the r� {.;jr�.��€;io�tt.1 applicable thereto, and Local Law No. 2 of 1977, rile "'own Board has requested that its agent, EcoiSci ences , Inc., i� ,,<^ .,�, ear, i-ts behalf a draft environmental impact statement, and ., .w-ant�irrorme.:�,t,:.a-i.,:.;.z��ta. ,. t, .s.t:a:t•,ement has. been _ Y'i 17�.L L[LCSJ i,...s'ak& d a�. •. prepared and was accepted by this boarA on or aboiA`+- December 28, 1979, and WHEREAS notice of completion o` 6Ya.3 t E-1," was duly circulated and written comments fro{!it` <� ;`-�zbii.c: acre invited by advertisement appearing in the WAP11INf :R A14D SOMIIIERM DLTTCHESS NEWS on January 2, 1980, and WHEREAS the Towm Board has rev-,A`,2,-:fd t.,he c:ont_�_nts of the (ramt environmental impact statement and th--e> coimyients thereon, NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVES ti°. :-,'t the findings of the Toy=Tn Board as to the possible environments impact. rem,ll ting from the adoption of the aforedescribed amenGed comprehensive zoning and map ordinance/be as follows: ONE: That the adoption of the said amended comprehen- sive zoning ordinance and map viewed in their entirety, will have no adverse environmental impact. TWO: That many of the objections to the said ordinance are those which address concerns associated with implementation of permitted land uses under the ordinance, which concerns are gen- erally preserved for further review as to environmental impact in those specific instances of implementation in view of the safe- guards afforded by the ordinance, the State Environmental Quality Review Act and its regulations and Local Law No. 2 of 1977. THREE: Those comments previously made by the Town Board and set forth as Exhibit A hereto are readopted and reaffirmed. FOUR: No E.A.F. Statement shall be required in view of the submission of a draft E.I.S. FIVE: The Town Supervisor is empowered to prepare and circulate a notice of no significant impact on the environment (negative declaration) in the manner prescribed by regulation. Said notice shall conform to the requirement of Section 617.10 of 6 NYCRR, Part 617. Roll Call Vote: Supervisor Louis D."Diehl Aye Councilman Nicholas Johnson Aye Councilwoman Bernice R. Mills Aye Councilwoman Janet M. Reilly Aye Councilman Frank Versace Nay Resolution Duly Adopted 3-10-80 The determination of the environmental impact resulting from the adoption of a comprehensive revised zoning ordinance and trap must be made in the context of the many variables which attach to land use practices. At one end of the spectrum, land development and use, when viewed in the •environmental context, could be wholly denied to prevent any impact on environmental elements. At the opposite end of the spectrum, land use could be unregulated, thereby creating a maximum potential for adverse impact upon environmental elements. Human needs and the promotion thereof require both the consideration of the environmental elements and the consideration of whether or not at times, such human needs may outweigh the preservation of environ- mental elements in their pristine state. Where development is inevitable, environmental considerations require that such development be permitted in a manner that will minimize environmental impact. Any zoning ordinance necessarily reflects the weighing of interest between development and preservation of the environment. A zoning ordinance which absolutely forbids development would be constitutionally suspect. Conversely, a zoning ordinance which failed to consider environmental elements would be equally suspect in terms of meeting legitimate environmental objectives. Consideration of land use proposals must also be made in the context of existing land use experiences within the municipality. Finally, any land use evaluation made in environmental Fk' P context to the extent that such evaluation attempts to project actual impact is inherently speculative, as the objective of such zoning ordinance is not to affirmatively cause growth, but to control the same. Whether or not such development will take place cannot be ascertained with any degree of reasonable certainty. Therefore, the ability to project actual impacts is diminished. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the foregoing constraints, a determination of no adverse environmental impact is made for the following reasons: 1. Commercial activity.will be relegated to those areas which are presently heavily used. Commercial areas will not be expanded into areas of current low density land use, thus eliminating the impact of such commercial activity to areas already experiencing high intensity views. Illustrative is the Route 9 corridor. 2. Low density residential zoning is generally prevelant in those areas adjacent to the Hudson River, thus minimizing the impact of any development upon the ecological system of the river. 3. Higher intensity residential development is limited to those areas generally served by municipal water and sewage facilities, thus minimizing the impact of such development on existing water tables and sub- surface waters. 4. Section 480 of the zoning ordinance makes provision for the control of obnoxious activities including but not limited to noise, vibrations, smoke, dust, toxic matters, traffic, and other activities that if left unregulated would adversely affect the quality of the environment. No comparable provisions are present in the existing zoning ordinance. 5. Provision is made for site plan review of all non- residential activities, empowering town agencies, as an incidence to development, to take into consideration environmental factors and considerations in regulating development of such sites. 6. Provision is made for special considerations which are attached to development of flood -prone areas. 7. Provision is made for designated residential develop - went (Section 442) which development places priority upon considerations of preservation of environmental features. Such designated residential development is a floating zone permitted throughout the town. ue SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The framework for the proposed zoning ordinance for the Town of Wappinger is the Town Development Plan adopted on February 11, 1974. The Plan elaborates on five goals that give careful consideration to numerous development alterna- tives for future growth in the Town. New definitions in the proposed ordinance and the expansion of them into additional provisions indicates that the proposed zoning ordinance is more comprehensive in nature than the existing ordinance. Zoning -up, zoning -down, and changing the zoning character play an important role in the proposed ordinance. The trade-off between them, however, is well balanced and con- forms to both the intents of the development plan and en- vironmentally sound planning. Implementation of the proposed ordinance will have unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, although the proposed zoning changes clearly reflect environ- mental considerations and mitigating measures. The proposed.ordinance includes mitigating measures which clearly indicate a distinct interest on behalf of the Town to address environmental concerns and to relieve or minimize the potential for adverse impacts. In analyzing the effects of up -zoning, the Town of Wappinger has carefully examined and considered such impacts and has chosen the alternative that best satisfies the needs of its community presently and in the future. I � C ? Thus, based on the comprehensiveness, the absence of irreversible impacts, the mitigating measures, and the envir- onmentally sound planning that composes the proposed plan, it is recommended that the proposed zoning ordinance be implemented as prescribed. 5 Cfa NW,EcolSciences, inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES Eastern Region • 1 Bank Street • Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 (201) 627-5726 March 21, 1980 Ms. Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Dear Ms. Snowden: Enclosed please find responses to the three sets of comments on the EIS for the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. Please note that several of our responses necessitated additions to the report for clarification purposes. If there are any further comments or questions concerning this matter, please contact Louise M. Palagano at 201-627-5726. Sincerely, Peter R. Sp' ney Regional Ma ager PRSdm C'C 3ta5- (XO Corporate Office: South Bend, Indiana I Mid -Atlantic Region: Vienna, Virginia North Central Region: Milwaukee, Wisconsin * Midwest Region: South Bend, Indiana RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JOHN E. MAC DONALD, JR. Mr. MacDonald questions a proposed Cranberry Hills sub- division for 550 housing units in an area previously zoned R-20 and now proposed R-40, and "holding ponds" that have apparently been approved for Cranberry Hills, according to his knowledge. Other statements indicate his discontent with the Town Boards. Also, he is requesting that the Town Board schedule a public hearing on the environmental impact statement. The above comments and questions are of a planning nature and are in no way within our jurisdiction. These concerns should be addressed to the Town Board and/or Planning Board for clarification. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM EDWARD S. HAWSLEY, CHAIRMAN, TOWN OF WAPPINGER CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Comment: 1) The summary and conclusions section are contradictory for example, "Implementation of the proposed ordinance will have unavoidable adverse environmental impacts" and "thus based on the comprehensiveness, the absence of irreversible impacts." Response: attached letter (Attachment A) from Peter :2. to Nicholas Johnson rated March 6, 1930 which and clarifies the above statement. See the Spinney revises Comment: 2) Page 7, Goal 4 - There is no environmental analysis to support policies A and B. Response: We are in concurrence with the fact that there is no environmental analysis to support policies A and B; however, the purpose of including them was to exemplify that the five goals elaborated in the Town Development Plan give careful consid- eration to numerous development alternatives for future growth as well as to indicate the compre- hensiveness of the development plan which serves as a framework for the proposed zoning ordinance. Comment: 3) Page 8, Goal 5 - Seems to be irrevelant and not supported by analysis. Response: See response for Comment 2 above. Comment: 4) Page 9 and 10 - Definitions as such do not add substance to an ordinance. They merely define terms and do not impart philosphy. Response: Definitions do add substance to an ordinance as is indicated in the text on pages 9-10. These addi- tions indicate that the proposed zoning ordinance is more comprehensive in nature than the existing ordinance and intends to better clarify and eluci- date the proposed ordinance. It is through these additional definitions and then the expansion of them into additional provisions in the proposed ordinance that planning for orderly growth can be accomplished. Pnmmantc 5) Page 11 - The environmental setting is too broad in definition and does not discuss soil types, bedrock, and wetlands, nor are they correlated with Figures 1 thru 4. 6) Page 12 - The prime agricultural soils are not defined nor located. Response: See attached Figure 4 (Attachment B) for wetlands, steep slopes, and special flood hazard zones, and see attached Figure 5 (Attachment C) for soil types and prime agricultural land. These should be inserted into the environmental impact statement as part of the "Environmental Setting," section. Comment: 7) Page 21 - The alternatives are not adequately addressed. This paragraph seems to attempt to justify the proposed ordinance. Response:' The only alternative presented was the existing ordinance. It was not within the scope of the EIS to generate alternatives. Comment: 8) Page 27 - The proposed changes will certainly have a direct impact on energy use and cannot be dismissed with such a simple statement. Response: The following is an addition to the text on page 27 and should be inserted as such: "The proposed changes are administrative and not directly applicable to energy use; (addition)" however, Section 411.9 of the proposed zoning ordinance does, however, provide an opportunity for cluster development and the use of energy-saving site planning techniques which is in direct conformance with Goal 3 of the Town Development Plan." RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JEFFREY L. CHURCHILL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DUTCHESS COUNTY DEPT. OF PLANNING Comment: Section I - Need and Purpose The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Wappinger recognizes the important relationship between the Town Development Plan and the Town Zoning Ordinance. This section provides an informative discussion on the goals and policies of the adopted Town Plan and the fact that the zoning should be implemented in accordance with the Town Plan. Response: Not necessary. Comment: Section III - Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action A major flaw in this section of the Draft EIS is the failure to address the adverse impacts of an excess of commercially zoned land and, more specifically, an excess of land zoned for strip pattern commercial uses. Some of the impacts of strip development are noted on Page 19. The importance of the Town Development Plan as a framework for the zoning or- dinance is also stressed. The Town Development Plan recommends limiting commercial areas to existing centers of commercial activity while allowing land for expansion of these areas. Despite the disparity between the recommendations of the Town Development Plan and the proposed zoning ordinance as regards commercial land, the Draft EIS does not provide an adequate discussion of the issue. The potential impact of a large excess of commercially zoned land on existing commercial centers or the community as a whole is not evaluated. It is recommended that the following amendments be considered for this section of the Draft EIS: Page 13. Paragraph 2 should take into consideration the fact that Area 5B, along Route 9D, is already developed as an apartment complex; Response: Paragraph 2 takes into consideration that Area 5B is being up -zoned and that increased density (such as an apartment complex) on this area could have significant adverse environmental impacts (due to erosion and runoff) unless strict controls on construction techniques and landscaping are instituted to prevent such damages. Page 19. Paragraph 1 states that Area 4B is commercially developed, this should be amended as there is no commercial use at the site. Response: Area 4B is zoned commercial according to the zoning map of Wappinger. There may, however, be no commercial use at this site. Page 18. Table 1 and the appropriate section of the text should consider the proposed extension of the Neighborhood Business Zone along Route 9D; Section V - Alternatives This section does not adequately address the issue of commercial zoning. Alternatives to commercial zoning are addressed in the Town Development Plan but alternatives are absent from this section of the Draft EIS. Response: The only alternative presented was the existing ordinance. It was not with the scope of this EIS to generate alternatives. The alternate zoning recommendations are more appropriately a planning function. Comment: Section VII - Growth Inducing Agents The first sentence of this section mentions numerous areas which, if developed in accordance with the proposed zoning, would have a growth -inducing influence on the Town. However, land identified as Areas sA, 4A, 5B, and 9.would not necessarily have a significant impact on the Town because they are already developed at varying residential densities. Response: We are in concurrence with such a statement that areas 2A,4A, 5B, and 9 would not necessarily have a significant impact on the Town since they are already developed at varying residential densities. These areas "developed" as such on Table 1, page 18. Comment: Section VIII - Proposed Action on Use and Conservation of Energy This section fails to take into consideration the mechanisms provided in the proposed zoning ordinance that encourage energy efficient residential development. Section 411.9 of the proposed zoning provides for Average Density Sub- divisions and Conservation Subdivisions. These land develop- ment mechanisms provide an opportunity for cluster development and the use of energy-saving site planning techniques. Section 425 permits Planned Unit Development Districts through which developers can combine various land uses in a more efficient pattern of land development. A. Response: The following is an addition to the text on page 27 and should be inserted as such: The proposed changes are administrative and not directly applicable to energy use; (addition) "however, Section 411.9 of the proposed zoning ordinance does, however, provide an opportunity for cluster development and the use of energy- saving site planning techniques which is in direct conformance with Goal 3 of the Town Development Plan." B. Response: While Section 425 might also be cited here, it is more appropriately addressed in the environmental review on,page 23, as a mitigating measure. PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS, NEW YORK 12590 TEL, 297.6256 March 25th, 1980 Town Board Town of Wappinger Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 RE: Changes in the Text of the Recently Adopted Zoning Ordinance Letter dated 7/20/79 from the Planning Board Dear Board Members: The Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger would like to take this opportunity to ask that the Board's previous request be reactivated for consideration by your Board as they continue to have the same concerns. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, l (Mrs.) etty-Ann Russ, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board br Attachment cc: Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspect /Zoning Admin. Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12390 4-1i 2 . UL. 297-6238 July 20th, 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Town Hail - Mill Street T4appingers Fails, NY 12590 RE: Changes in Text of Recently Adopted Zoning ordinance. Bear Board members: The Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger would like to recommend that the changes to the text as indicated on the attached pages are made in an effort to reflect current procedures and the desires of the Planning Board. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, (MrsIoWappinger tty-Ann Russ, Secretary Town Planning Board br Attachments cc: Jon Holden Adams, Attorney to the Town Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Adr:in. David Portman, Frederick P. Clark Associates laane H. Snowden, Town Clerk -1 - PAGE 23 Section 411.9 Average Density Subdivisions Eliminate the following: .,.> "Simultaneously with the approval of -a subdivision plat and pursuant to Section 281 of the Town Law, at the request of the applicant," The Planning Board feels that the averaging of lot sizes in subdivisions is a necessary provision but do not wish to tie this in with clustering (Example: Cranberry Hills Project) and want to have this flexibilty. PAGE 45 , Section 432 Application for a Special Permit On line number five (5) after "for an advisory report" add "and site plan approval,". PAGE 73 Section 450.1 Approval Required Eliminate the following: "or a special permit use approved in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 430 of this Ordinance," Section 450.2 Application for Site Development Plan Approval Change line Number four (4) to read "Planning Board Secretary" rather than "Zoning Administrator". PAGE 75 Section 450.3 Referral of Application to the Planning Board Please change to read as follows: -2 - "Upon receipt of a properly completed application as described in Section 450.2 above, the Planning Board Secretary shall refer copies of the application to appropriate Town County and State, officials, departments and agencies for their review and comments and shall allow a 15 day review period, the Planning Board Secretary shall submit a report containing these recommendations to the Planning Board together with the subject application. The applicant shall be provided a copy of the report and recommendation at least five days in advance of the Planning Board meeting at which'it will be considered. Within 45 days of the date of receipt of a properly completed application, the Planning Board shall act to approve, disapprove or approve with modifications, the proposed site plan." The following sections to be added: Section 450.5 Scheduling of Public Hearing 450.51 Upon receipt and approval of the completed application and all accompanying material, the Planning Board shall call a public hearing to be held within 45 days of the date of sub- mission. As a general rule, this hearing will be held at the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Board occurring 14 or more days after the application is submitted, so as to allow adequate time for the giving of official notice. 450.52 The Planning Board Secretary will submit notices to the Town newspaper for publication, will mail notices to abutting property owners and will file copies of the site plan for public review at least five days prior to the public hearing. The Secretary shall also mail a copy of the public notice and a copy of the site plan to the Dutchess County Department of Planning where notice to such agency is required by law, and to the Clerk of any abutting municipality where site plan development is to' be undertaken within 500 feet of such municipality, each to be received at least 10 days prior to the date of public hearing. Section 450.6 Public Hearing and Resolution Approving or Disapproving Site Plan Application The applicant and/or his representative should attend the public hearing. At the hearing, the Planning Board will give an opportunity to any interested person to examine or comment upon the site plan. Within 45 days of the public -3 -- hearing, the Planning Board will approve, with or without modifications, or disapprove the site plan by resolution which will set forth in detail any modifications to which the applicant is subject or reasons for disapproval. A copy of this resolution shall be mailed by the Planning Board Secretary to the applicant as soon as possible following the Board's decision. The time within which the Planning Board must act on the site plan may be extended by mutual by the applicant and the Planning Board. PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6256 July 20th, 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 RE: Changes in Text of Recently Adopted Zoning Ordinance. Dear Board Members: The Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger would like to recommend that the changes to the text as indicated on the attached pages are made in an effort to reflect current procedures and the desires of the Planning Board. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, (Mrs.) etty-Ann Russ, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board br Attachments CC: Jon Holden Adams, Attorney to /tthhTown Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspec/Zoning Admin. David Portman, Frederick P. C1 Associates R fCE1VED Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk ,- i r -�-- rl . JUL 2 0 1979 .� / i .. / � �%ELAINE 8. SNOWDEN -1 - PAGE 23 I Section 411.9 Averaqe Densitv Subdivisions Eliminate the following: "Simultaneously with the approval of a subdivision plat and pursuant to Section 281 of the Town Law, at the request of the applicant," The Planning Board feels that the averaging of lot sizes in subdivisions is a necessary provision but do not wish to tie this in with clustering (Example: Cranberry Hills Project) and want to have this flexibilty. PAGE 45 Section 432 Application for a Special Permit On line number five (5) after "for an advisory report" add "and site plan approval,". PAGE 73 Section 450.1 Approval Required Eliminate the following: "or a special permit use approved in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 430 of this Ordinance," Section 450.2 Application for Site Development Plan Approval Change line Number four (4) to read "Planning Board Secretary" rather than "Zoning Administrator_". PAGE 75 Section 450.3 Referral of Application to the Planning Board Please charge to read as follows: -2 - "Upon receipt of a properly completed application as described in Section 450.2 above, the Planning Board Secretary shall refer copies of the application to appropriate Town County and State, officials, departments and agencies for their review and comments and shall allow a 15 day review period, the Planning Board Secretary shall submit a report containing these recommendations to the Planning Board together with the subject application. The applicant shall be provided a copy of the report and recommendation at least five days in advance of the Planning Board meeting at which it will be considered. Within 45 days of the date of receipt of a properly completed application, the Planning Board shall act to approve, disapprove or approve with modifications, the proposed site plan." The following sections to be added: Section 450.5 Scheduling of Public Hearing 450.51 Upon receipt and approval of the completed application and all accompanying material, the Planning Board shall call a public hearing to be held within 45 days of the date of sub- mission. As a general rule, this hearing will be held at the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Board occurring 14 or more days after the application is submitted, so as to allow adequate time for the giving of official notice. 450.52 The Planning Board Secretary will submit notices to the Town newspaper for publication, will mail notices to abutting property owners and will file copies of the site plan for public review at least five days prior to the public hearing. The Secretary shall also mail a copy of the public notice and a copy of the site plan to the Dutchess County Department of Planning where notice to such agency is required by law, and to the Clerk of any abutting municipality where site plan development is to be undertaken within 500 feet of such municipality, each to be received at least 10 days prior to the date of public hearing. Section 450.6 Public Hearing and Resolution. Approving or Disapproving Site Plan Application The applicant and/or his representative should attend the public hearing. At the hearing, the Planning Board will give an opportunity to any interested person to examine or comment upon the site plan. Within 45 days of the public V C -3- hearing, the Planning Board will approve, with or without modifications, or disapprove the site plan by resolution which will set forth in detail any modifications to which the applicant is subject or reasons for disapproval. A copy of this resolution shall be mailed by the Planning Board Secretary to the applicant as soon as possible following the Board's decision. The time within which the Planning Board must act on the site plan may be extended by mutual consent by the applicant and the Planning Board. --t PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12390 TEL. 297-6286 July 23rd, 1979 Town Board Town of Wappinger Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 RE: 1. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Prohibiting Gasoline Storage Tanks in Residential Areas. 2. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance & Map per Planning Board's Recommendations on Rezoning Various Commercial Properties. Dear Board Members: At their July 19th, 1979 meeting, the Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger recommended that the above -captioned amendements be adopted. Members Present: Victor L. Fanuele Donald J. Keller George Brannen Dr. Harvey Miller Members Absent: Virginia Keeler James V. Porter James Mills Respectfully yours, (Mrs. Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board br cc: Jon Holden Adams, Attorney to t/hown Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk GG GEORGE I. HALTER AND ) ANNA G. HALTER, HIS WIFE, ET AL ) VS ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE COUNTY ) AND FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY ) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR ) BALTIMORE COUNTY ) LAW ROBERT C. CHEEK ) The Court has considered the testimony in the case, the arguments of counsel, and the opinions of the Zoning Commissioner and the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board apparently has a sound understanding of the guiding principles in this case. The restrictions imposed by the zoning regulations must be strictly construed. The Zoning regulations and restrictions of Baltimore County contain no provision that would prevent the erection of a structure such as contemplated by Mr. Cheek. As stated in the opinion of the Commissioners, the tower "is definitely not an accessory building as set forth under the definitions of Sectign 1, Page 3 of said regulations as codified September 1, 1948, and is, therefore, not lim+ted to `15 feet in height above the ground level'. " It appears to the Court that there is an eff,)rt on the part of the protestants to read into the zoning regulations an indefinite and variable standard of aesthetics or architectural good taste. The zoning regulations make no provision for any artistic or aesthetic code. For some years we have been beset on all sides by busy and persistent planners, whose purpose apparently is to plan for every conceivable human activity and regiment us from the cradle to the grave with the resultant destrucWon of freedom.Nothing, they say in effect, is to be left to individual choice or caprice and little or nothing to normal growth and development. However, as yet we have no high official arbiter of architecture or commissar of culture and it would be a tragic day for us, in my judgment, if we ever should have one. Some planning is necessary but the tendency today is to go to unreasonable extremes. -2- Both 2-, Both our Federal and State constitutions provide for a guarantee to every citizen certain inalienable rights and liberties. Under the Federal Constitution no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The Constitution of Nilaryland provides that the General Assembly shall enact no law authorizing private property to be taken for public use, without just ccmpensation being first paid or tendered to the party entitled to such compensation. Up until fairly recently property rights have been regarded as sacred as those of liberty but in recent years a grcwing number of short- sighted persons seem to hold the right of private property as of little im- portance and value. This attitude is a threat to the fundamental principles upon which our American system is founded and one which must be met with firmness and vigor. The general tendency to::lay is to limit the use of private property. Under the terms public health, safety and morals, and the broad, vague and legally loose and elastic catch --all of "general welfare" much is being attempted and much is being done in the restriction of property rights. As public welfare particularly means different things to different people much uncertainty has been injected into the old understanding of the theory of private property. It is, of course, legal for an owner of land to get up restrictions for a real estate development which includes matters of an archit9ctural and aesthetic nature but to invest public officials under a zoning ordinance with such broad powers would reduce the ownership of land to a legal fiction. Property owners frequently, in purchasing home sites in restricted sections, submit themselves by private agreement to the opinion and de- cisions of the owners of real estate developments as to the design and type of construction of their dwellings and to many other restrictions, but there is nothing in our zoning laws to justify such an assumption of authority by the zoning officials or the courts. I know of no zoning official or court qualified to pass upon such a controversial matter as architectural good taste. What one generation considers offensive another may regard as a thing of beauty. No doubt the early windmills among the dikes and canals of Holland were resented by worthy burghers as eyesores, but many windmills are to be observed in the landscapes of the old Dutch masters who apparently t -3- cibnsidered that windmills added charm to the lowland scenery. The same is true of the covered bridges, red barns, and old mills and silos of America; once scorned as examples of raw New World construction, today they are con- sidered quaint and furnish inspiration to many native modern artists. Perhaps A future generation of painters will delight in depicting the steel towers and aerials which many of us today regard as fantastic and incongruous. 1. Although much violence has been done to the old conception of the inalienable constitutional rights of liberty and property, our courts have consistently ruled that zoning acts and ordinances passed under them are valid and constitutional only when the public health, ' morals, safety or welfare are concerned. Judge Hammond, in Wakefield v. Kraft, 96 Atl. 2nd page 29, refer- ring to the case of Chayte v. Maryland jockey Club, 179 ivid. 390, said: "Restrictions can be imposed on private property only when justified for the protection of the public health, morals, safety or welfare. The Court restricted the application of the rule, saying: 'We have been cited no case applying this principle to a situation of rezon- ing from a higher to a lower class. In order to impose restrictions some valid exercise of the police power must be proven. But such power is invoked fcr the protection of the property restricted and not to give protection to the surrounding property. It is basic to the law of property that a man shall be allowed the widest use of his property consonant with the protec- tion of his neighbors. In order to justify therefore a restriction of that use, it must be shown that such re- striction is in some manner related to the police power of the sovereign'." The public safety, health, morals or welfare will in no wise be affected by the erection of thetower among the trees in Mr. Cheek's back- yard. His home is still his castle within the narrow limits set by law as approved by the courts. The Court is of the opinion that the Board of Zoning Appeals made no error in its ruling and its finding is affirmed. March 23, 1954 6604-pw lc j _3 John B. Gontrum, Judge This material produced and distributed free of charge as a service to amateurs by the AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE, INC. Newington, Connecticut 06111 Printed in the U.S.A. I t�leasG rea A SURVEY OF AMATEUR RADIO A +tv% �%A, 7 By: W. Stuart Home This survey of amateur radio is written in an effort to give the layman sorne insight into the nature of the hobby, the kind of equipment used, the methods of operation, all in a fairly nontechnical vein. THE NAT"JRE OF AMATEUR RADIO Basically, radio amateurs, called "hams," are interested in communication by means of radio transmission and reception of signals. The signals may be of various types: the oldest form is by Morse Code telegraphy, commonly referred to as CW. This is still the preferred means of communication by at Ieast a third of the hams active today. The next significant form of communication is by voice. Specialized techniques of voice transmission developed in the late 1950's, and these specialized techniques will be explained later. There are several other forms of communication, the two most popular of which are radio teletype (RTTY) and arnateur television (ATV or SSTV). Hams are interested in communication. To achieve this, some simply get on the air and comrnunicate with whatever other hams they may happen to contact. Others specialize in communication techniques, such as using the moon as a reflector in order to achieve longer distances with certain frequencies tinat would otherwise not travel the distance obtained. In fact, hams first showed the way in using cart h-rnoon-earth paths for communications. Other hams specialize in working only foreign countries, for which awards can be obtained. But the biggest group of hares fall into what is referred to as PICON: Public Interest, Convenience, Or Necessity. These are the hams dedicated to maintaining "nets" or networks of corn muni cations among a group of hams that may be located statewide or across the entire United States or in liason with some other country. In California there are probably two well-publicized nets. One of these is WESCARS, West Coast Amateur Radio Service. Its function is primarily (a) irnnnediate routing of emergency and priority traffic, (b) assistance to travelers, and (c) provision for cornmunications facilities for harns desiring to contact other persons, essentially in California, although the other western states are involved as well. The second group falls into what is known as MARS: Military Affiliate Radio Stations. These are harps who have affiliated themselves with a branch of the service and thereby are permitted, by special license, to use frequencies outside the regular ham bands to communicate with military facilities overseas. The most common example of a MARS operation is the use of phone patches between service personnel in Europe and the United States. How does one become a ham? It looks hard at first but it isn't really. First, you must understand the licensing of ham radio operation is a function of the United States Government under the auspices of the Federal Communications Commission. It is the FCC that establishes all rules and regulations for the operations of all radio and TV transmissions, subject to, of course, international treaty. The FCC has established certain classes of licenses, all of which require a knowledge of Morse Code and of general radio theory. The beginner's license, the Novice, requires ability to send and receive in Morse Code at the rate of five In this fashion, the ham can be assured of having sufficient power to enable him to engage in fairly reliable communications. The Antenna. Now we come to what has to be the most controversial aspect of all ham operations: the antenna. Simply stated, the function of t he, antenna is to transfer those electrical impulses being generated in the transmitter from the final amplifier to the air (or space), and radiate those pulses; the antenna also serves to couple the receiver to those transmitted pulses so that they can be demodulated. Because of the need of reliable communications usually over long distances. the antenna must efficiently perform. While it is true that any old piece of v.,ire may do the job, it won't do it very well at all. In fact, if the antenna is not properly designed to match the transmitter, it may actually cause a loss of signal (the common expression for a ham radiating a very poor signal is that he is using his rain gutter for an antenna). There are several features about antennas in general that should first be noted. All antennas today are designed to meet certain matching requirements to the transmitter. This matching requirement is one that best suits efficient power transfer from transmitter to antenna; this characteristic is usually referred to as impedence. The antenna actually operates as a kind of transformer, changing the electrical pulses in the transmitter to radiated energy. Another requirement is that length is a critical factor. To operate efficiently on each band, the antenna's length must be one-half the length for the partrcu!ar band; e.g., for the 80 meter band the antenna should be 40 meters long, or approximately 132 feet. As the frequency goes up, the length decreases so that at the 20 meter band (the one most commonly used for telephone patches overseas), the element being fed energy (driven element) is 33 feet long. At the three tol5 bands, 20, 15 and 10 meters, the length is short enough that highly directional antennas can be used. A directional antenna is one which will tend to radiate substantially 90 percent of its energy in a given direction. If an antenna is this directional, then, of course, the reliability of communication is enhanced that much more. In addition, directionality also serves to eliminate the possibility of interference from another station that may be using the same frequency or one very close, thus permitting the operator to complete his cornrnunications in an unimpeded fashion. When a directional antenna is constructed, the typical variety is very much like the directional antennas one sees for FM use or for TV channels 2-13. Several elements are placed along a horizontal boom. The rear element, called the reflector, is the longest. It is then followed (in inverse order) by the driven element which has the electrical energy fed into it. Then come two or more directors. Each of these decrease in size with the shortest being the one in front. The direction of radiation is from the driven elernent along the boom toward the directors (i.e., at right angles to the elements). Again, because we are dealing with fixed laws of science, not just any length of elements, boom, or spacing between elements will suffice. Usually, the spacing Between elements is somewhere between 0.15 to 0.2 wavelengths. Thus, for 20 meters, the spacing between elements becomes 13 feet to 16.5 feet. -5- Unless these distances (and the related physical laws) are followed, the amateur will not be obtaining the most efficient system for communications. It should be noted that FM and directional TV antennas follow these laws as well. The difference is that these two broadcasting modes operate on frequencies so much higher (as permitted by FCC) that the element spacing and wavelengths are all very much shorter. The antenna length for the FM receiver for example is only five feet. By now, it should be realized that the ordinary broadcast station receiver does not follow these principles. The reason for this is that a coil is substituted for the long wire, and that there is only limited range involved with so much energy being radiated by the station that the relative inefficiency of the receiving antenna is of no consequence. Once the antenna is constructed and assembled, the next problem is to put it in the air. Height also becomes a critical factor. A large number of articles in the past 15 years of QST, the leading arnateur radio magazine, point out the necessity for an antenna of proper elevation if consistent reliable communications are to be had. Usually, the ham who graduates from the more fundamental type of antenna in search of more efficient means of communication, whatever the purpose, will graduate to a simple beam antenna mounted some 25-35 feet in the air. But after a while he finds that there are those times when his signal is of marginal quality and yet other hams are able to maintain communications. Those other hams are using antennas anywhere from 50-75 feet in the air. But mere height is not the simple solution. That height is again related to such factors as the path or distance to be covered and the frequency of operation and the relative conductivity of the ground. In the past few years, several, studies have consistently demonstrated that the antenna must be elevated to a height of 70 feet or better in order to assure the operating amateur of a 90 percent chance of reliable communications over long distances. Naturally, the structure to support some of these antennas must itself be strong. Until only a few years ago, most hams constructed their own towers. These were either wood or metal and usually rather bulky and space -consuming affairs. But as with all things, there has been an improvement over the years. Today, there are commercial, towers available to theharp which meet all the requirements for sound engineering and public safety. While it may be true that such towers may not win a beauty contest with the neighbors, such towers have so many safety features and safety factors built into them that no neighbor need fear such structures. Bulk has also decreased;what once required a 50 or 75 square foot area now only requires 25; what once required extensive space for guy ropes now requires none at all. All of this, of course, does not come cheaply to the dedicated hare. The typical installation cost, excluding the antenna, is in the range of $1,500 to $3,500. While the cost may seem high, indeed, the amateur who routinely handles such traffic as emergency messages, or overseas traffic, considers it a small price to pay over the years. In addition, should he sell his house, the antenna and tower are usually removeable so the cost is not lost. Attached as an appendix to this paper are sorne tables and information relating to the types of antenna towers that are available today for the ham's use. M BAND CHARACTERISTICS For the purpose of thispaper, a discussion f general Above bhe�lOhmetereband a tics will be limited to the general bands given previously. whole new set .of principles come into play, and a discussion of the higher bands is not germane here. From 30,000 KHz and below (10 meters and lower), a radio wave emitted by an antenna travels upward and outward until it is bent backward by a layer of air, tailed the ionosphere, and the wave is then angled back to earth. This layer of atmosphere is approximately 60 miles above the surface of the earth. The longer wavelengths, 80 and 40 meters, consistently are bent by this layer of air. The shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) are not so consistently bent, and there are many times when the 20, 15 and 10 meter bands are not useable simply because they radiate on out into space without being bent back to earth. The properties of the ionosphere are in large part due to ultraviolet there radiation from v r he ation. As a The bands all react differentbe ly y tooth a thesedaily changesrint ion and a seasonal the a reflecting layer or ionosphere. , The 160 meter band offers reliable working ranges of only 25 miles during the day. On winter nights, ranges extend outward to distances of several thousand miles. The 80 meter band is somewhat similar. The maximum distance to be covered during daylight hours is approximately 200 miles but increases to several thousand miles at night. During the winter, transoceanic contacts can be regularly relied upon; during summer months, operation on this band is difficult because of a high static level. The 40 meter toband 700offers 800increased anddistances nighttime the incrr0easesmeter band. to clear Daytime stretc around the world in the winter nights. For solid, reliable, long-distance corn munications,,the 20 meter band is the . workhorse of the bands. During the peak of the sunspot cycle, this band is virtually open to some part of the world 24 hours of every day. During the winter months and during a sunspot minimum, the band is most useful during daylight hours. The 15 meter band runs a close second for being a workhorse for long- distance communications. Particularly during daylight hours, this band when used with a good directional antenna as on 20 meters can open up a multitude of foreign countries. Incidentally, this is one of the four bands a Novice class license can use (the others are 80, 40 and 10 meters), and one most used by Novices for contacting foreign countries. The 10 meter band is an unusual band, This one band is extremely subject to the sunspot cycle. When there is a maximum number of sunspots (the maxima and minima occur in an 11 year cycle), this band is "wide open," but when a minimurn cycle sets in, it is good only for limited distances, and generally, a signal will skip from one spot to another over distances of 1,000 miles or more without a great degree of predictable reliability. !MA GENERAL COMMENT5 As indicated above, there are two basic kinds of communication: CW or telegraphy, and voice or SSB. In addition, there are many other modes as well. On very high frequencies will be found a number of hams who specialize in voice transmission by means of FM. Other groups tend to communicate only by teletype while others are busy with TV. Not all amateurs are interested in communicating per se; some are more involved with technical aspects such as using the moon as a reflector so that the far side of the earth can be reached by frequencies that are otherwise impossible to use (it was a pair of hams who first showed the way to this kind of transmission that is now so common). Others are concerned with other technical aspects: for as many parts as there are in a common receiver or transmitter, there are about as many technical specialites. Other hams are interested in the hobby just for the chance for a relaxing chat with someone else who shares their interests. Here the commercial manufacturer has come up with another innovation on an old ham theme that simplifies portable or mobile operation: the transceiver. This is actually a combination receiver and transmitter, in which several stages are shared by both transmitter and receiver, lending an economy to parts, costs, weight and size. But today the most publicized, most useful aspect of amateur radio is PICON -- the Public Interest, Convenience and Necessity; hams serving communities in times of natural disaster or emergency. Fires, floods, earthquakes and other catastrophes get a quick response from radio amateurs who handle messages for public service agencies and individual citizens alike. For military personnel overseas, there is ham radio, through the miracle of the phone patch, linking them with the folks back home. Radio amateurs work together through a group known as MARS (Military Affiliate Radio System) to provide personal communication capabilities for servicemen and women. It's not only the big jobs that see the ham helping out. Something as simple as a flat tire can summon the aid of a ham who, through his handie-talkie, will call a garage for assistance to a stranded motorist. The involvement of hams in PICON is tremendous. Radio amateurs throughout the U.S., serving in local groups and nationwide networks, donate time, equipment and expertise freely and voluntarily at no cost but with great benefit to the public. -2 kJ IV LW 11PC I This paper has reviewed the fundamental principles of Ham Radio, showing the nature of ham radio communications, the types of equipment and their nature, and the manner and methods used for the purpose of conveying information by means of radio. It should be stressed that, like a chain, one ham station is only as strong as its weakest link, be it the receiver, transmitter or antenna. The function and purpose of ham radio is to provide efficient and reliable corn munications, both during times of common events and in times of dire need or emergency of stress. Ham radio may be the only means of providing such corn rnunication, and there are plenty of hams on hand to provide that vitally necessary communications link. The paper is a brief overview and is written with the nontechnically-oriented reader in mind. j -'l D.1 �U federal Coff�mufiiu�ltions Cormissioa a 1919 f Street,ll 1.017asi;ir ten, M. 20554 0 87276 LOCAs, Lp, a;S RDSU ATIirG RADIO MAY BE Pim-flK= July 29, 1977 - B BY CCY` 4L iVICATICNS ACT Thelre has been. an increase in the numbar of ; n -n n i ries and cimplaints re- ceived by the CcE=ission from mmn ers of the public concerning state and local leas which deal with radio and television. For the most part, thase calls md lett--rs are, related to CB radio, and eitYier ask whether a particular ordinance is constitutional or cmplain about enforcarent of a state statute thought to bV in conflict. with Ccrmission rc ulations. The purpose of this Public I ti.ce is to briefly exam-ina federal - state relations in this area, an .to offer saw information to Tamdssiori licensees vho feel they have encountered unproper local regulation of elerctMuc car;rnmications . As early as 1912, Congress recognized that ccr-m n.ications by means of rad`o energy was inherently interstate in nature, was a form of ocTera, and vas uniq' vely adaptable to uniform regulation by the federal goverracent. 1/ "he_ pdio Act of 1927 increasEd the foderal governnr-nt's authority to regulate this area, and with the passage of the ccamunieations Pct of 1934, the tremi tu,,m r?s caMreh'�rsive federal re<jul.ation of interstate and foreign eanm-mication by wire and radio w_=Ls sti.st1�tially co pleted. The Ccarruinicati.ons Act of 1934, provided for the establish:10-nt of the Federal. Ccuni.catiuns amrission to execute and enforoe the Provisions of fisc Act. 'lh^_ goals m� sought to by attained by adoption of the Art are clearly stated in Section 1: For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign oarmcroe in ccnimmica.t ion by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nation -vide, and world-wiOe wise and radio cannunicat_i-on service. - - - and for the pm -pose of securing a mare effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority hereto granted by law to sevacal. agencies aryl by granting additional au`J-ority with respect to inter- state and foreign commerce in wire and radio c=muni - c,ation... 47 U.S.C. §151. Additionally, Section 301 of the Pict claims =-plete jurisdiction over r,-_,0_i.o energy for the federal goverment. Sec' -ion 301 states: It is ti)e purpose-' of this Act, air* oti,.�- things, to rraintpin the control of the Unite , States Ivor all the diannels of intestate rnd foreign radio trans: "i -O."'; and to provi ev_- for t` -e use of su a� c i, it el.s ... ur.c7cr (Over) 1 2 r lioenses granted by Federal. awzhority ... rio person shall use or operate any apparatus for the trans- mission of en^r f or =- mani.cati.cns ' or signals by radio . except uryler arA irl ac�rdanG� with this Art and with a license in that behalf grE- tc-d ITOCr Provisions of this Act, 47 U.S.C. §301. Furtherrmre, Congress granted the ammi.ssion ti-- authority to establish a parvasive sys;im of regulation in the varieras ra:iio services. Section 303 of the Act gives such nunaro.Ls paweys to thr-mission as to leave no dc�,:bt as to the extent of ttLis regulatory scheme. llhv�sa and otk^r sections of the Cortmmi.cat, ons Act indicate tki.:-, cl: ar intention of. C^ngross that radio be regulated by the federal go-Tcsrment. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, statee � local statutes my he pre--e�:t3d: (1) utien a local law_ conflicts with -a law enacted by Congress, cr (2) when Congress has ado-ated p=-msive legislation in a particular field with the intent that regulation in the area will be conducted exclusively by the fedn..ral gove_rnrr--nt. 2/ Paditionally, local ordinances knish uzireasonsbly hmlen interstate crie r may by invalic:,te<3 under the authority gi:a-itcd to the federal gov;srmetnt by ticJ Cor.�Yce Clause of the United States Constitution. 3/ The prcblem of federal - state conflicts in radio o:at:;nzdcati.on is not a naq one. In 1929, the F&Ieral Radio Ccmnussion issued a report entitled "State and Monicipsl Regulation of Radio Ct=mnicaticn." In the fc---waid to thzt early irablication, the General Counsel of the Federal Pbdio Cc.mission made the follcreing observation: Transmission of int-lligence ny radio is interstate occrtrnrce, and p.iblic interest requixes Congressional action to a0hi.n.ister and conserve the ether for the reximm benefit of the people of the United States. The Radio Pzt of 1927, as amenr3�, re -resents the latest Federal statesmnt of ti3 subject. Mearn tj.le, in recognition of local interests, State legislatures and lesser bodies have framed lcT4s irrm�osing a mna_-are of control on radio tram -mission and receF*iticn, and on the use of apparatus causing interference. SarP of these measu_Yes are legitimate and useful, fa.11inr, wall within tlie scope of the police pnver. Sc"- are clearly unconstitutional, since thev i-nterfere with Federal regulr.tion.... 4/ Usually, the Courts, both state and fedtiral, zire called L*mn to :take tie final decision t,.then a conflict hatwcen fed .ra?. ani st..ate layer arises, and whet -ter a p;u ticular local statute has been pre-emryt..od iry fe:ieral legislation is a gtastion of law. For pro�r resolution Ue specific local lap in q stion gust Y.o rc v.;cw;,d, and each cas, mu -3t be carefully jack);? en its c,•m L.cts. - 3 - Generally, it may be said that in matters i nvol,.,Lng purely local concerns, courts have found that reasonable local statutes nay stand absent a clear conflict with the Act. For instar -e, local zoning ordinances limiting antenna heights, 5/ regulations on professional advertising practices, 6/ and the right of local c=ts to adjudicate property rights involving licensees facilities 7/ have all been upheld.. On the other hand, where local law conflicts with the Cormission's regulatory scheme for radio services, the federal law will nrevail. For example, state laws involving the censorship of mterial carried on br dcast stations 8/ and those requiring C=nission 1i ce"z,--4-,s to refrain from activities required by the Camu ications Act 9/ have been struck doan. The Cmu. ssion does not have the resources to routinely monitor state and local laws which irzpact on radio nor can it interver_e in every local court proceeding in which the validity of various laws are tested. Navever, licensees who feel vic+-imi.zed by an improper local law ray raise federal pre-e=tion in their own behalf, and local legislative bodies should consider the issue when contemplating the enactment of ordinances in areas regulated by the Comm, =cations Act. Since many of the inquiries and corplaints received by the Co-,miission in this regard have conce_rred Citizens Bard radio, local legislative bodies should also be aware that the Federal ComT ni.cations Corrmission has issued extensive regulations Governing this area. Accordingly, local ordinances designed specifically to regulate CB transmissions could be invalid according to the legal principles discussed above. _17 Radio Act of 1912; Pub. No. 264, ch. 287j 37 Stat. 302 (1912). For early cases dealing with the inherently interstate nature of radio seer Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Brothers Bond and *"ortgacte Co., 289 U.S. 266, 53 S. Ct 627, 77 L.F . 1166 (1933); Technical RRdio Laboratory v. Federal Radio Cormission, 36 F.2d ill (D.C. Cis. 1929) ; Li -Lite--; Stats v. Retteridae, 43 F. Supp. 53 N.D. Ohio 1942); United States v. A^^erican Bond and Mortgage Co., 31 F.2d 448 (N.D. I11. 1929), Vhitehlxst v. Grimss, 21 F.2d 787 (E.D. Ky. 1927). 2/ See, e.g., Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., U.S. , 45 U.S.L.W 9488 M,ay 24, 1977 City of Burbank v. Loc ecd t Y Te*rsr�31, Ine.,411 L.S. 624, 93 S. Ct. 1854, 36 L.Ed. 2d 547 (1973) ; Head v. New Moxico Board of Examiners, 374 U.S. 424, 83 S. Ct. 1759, 10 L. Fd.2d 933 (1963) Florida Lir- and Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 83 S. Ct. 1210,10 L.Fd. 2d 248 (1963); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Co .,331 U.S. 218, 67 S. Ct. 11, 91 L. Fd.1447 ( 47 . (Over) RECEIVED J U L 9 1979 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN V\ f�(� �oX 32 oll "5 Pl'`(tococlo t K eA-c k^ , C. v v- . eys ra t t s, � r .L c,. -wt a vt G i� q, L o C6 &,,r KSC— q1 7(oo l keay- V%,5 Wa, p -F ( v,5e,,-c, J L'k Vx e-- z 4 . T ke.. Z Or Ji pt e y �o tt� 5 CD A Radio D�erafo✓s � d -f� e�� v ia�.�`f�-�-y e- 7 u t rv, Pyr -i.7 a f"t 4j C�ini"evtv�0.S -A vi o��C'X � w, pc>�'�C�.vL� se r�tce ✓t r r 5 C- ems. wt u. c1 L i S�rJi LC- rvte� a ✓P�►' S L'a.S�!`' i I SVII, � yKctSto S75-Ak4)kc, A d a 6 g-uf wv� -f-� � 1 e v� �f m -f- ke- prof i7 �!�lrrs T`te Lt�IG �t o� J Gam, ��u vLGc $ r ti %/l�R.��O I I-[.rc e,4, -S �o Zo o ✓ter- `f--� e a- W4 we L.c vc t c2.�i o� :opt `Flt e z -o ✓meq, u i vers Q r SD - 76- �e e_�' �. � � �► -�o r Cb c.o m+M UA, vi T"k er LA) a V ��ers v� o .,j._ Q A, vl i e'er N,2 U13 0.V e (e,,&o,�n. T �x V C- vtieS� �c��o rc�.b �� (IOLA3) G11vtG� fQ- L i?j eJYs o � � ✓c�.Te. o v� Xn cl,S cL✓� o ti. � Wu �e (e,.t5 �'I� i ti _i�.e 11 w►efev__ 0 ✓e�i� Tke t� e �� 1�,�- o-� 4 Lie- a ✓ems--ec.� e a4u4evcvrcc.. vv� f � au� sc.�oVdin� 1-5 be:�-We--epl r 8 aK d 2 LQ�' 4- k el t L 20 �oo� _ C a IAAkk -F--k e- PC C - CL L uj uF +0, L-::✓E'Nt i -t-\, �. 5wt4 ��,e� s upP o tr+' � v�, � s +r (A o.ceV a + w� o s `� �-i� e✓s � � J vi- J (c e. e. t LIN. w, trod � �•.�� a �tTevtw.cZ 47b-W 02-�r:5 ot- re- 4- e,-� cL Y- ✓�. `�e y -ice. k- e `rh, e444 o cv" . . I req L4 r v e w4a�, 4 e,, Y �[ Y' e- Y0. (. O 6 1 �. row- +k e, I S &txj Ivt Iki lea c A 7 5- z�r e -x F eyt. I i w�+�veLIL Y v 4 F3.7 [It Ye'S C.P. o r � �v.. ate.. c.., � U t est, � � c� � �-►. C C- c(- ✓ely- roe t o e- S 5 + e-u s vj � I C-x L40LA) p Av- e,5. 14 LS a-o cear + ke- Towv-�- o.- s �A, +C-CAA V C-A-\ (3�, �-k + OL rl A- k -P, div` e Y" C_ e- S ut C. L GtM. o Y- C L V,.,Z I.1, ®r c. e-- S vv'-�j L--%- e,7� c- e- 1 e- e--+, - I e- M vto Y -S 0. tCom` OrA-Ywt SctwS 0. v C -C's + A M A ci LTi eJr w�. t v�, e, t c> VN- -&- N'LL���O✓S swy5 aA- t ,.,, +,A Ll a L't r- -f--\/ , t 1 `j.,_ o w VL (A e-,5 tA (a, � -F V A + -E-o L� e done crvt2. brco. cA. c -o, -Si SGYVfG� W l , v�-PSV ra. b i o i 5 +CL -t . e-✓� o ✓ter' �aa � s � �, � 4-o e PCC - \'O' o T U �. t e. e A 5� �c J Ge-w�.wcu.vt�ca� �o-.-� t S e✓emery e-rc�s VJVI.$ 1 ri P�j rj . A Nti0.��.V� 1�.A.d to vi- Ge- t i-tivtQ J � L o vu. (w e-r �. o -{""� i � y e r-t ave ye-Lc� asscs�R*cc,e i s7 w IL L e-v� � ✓RC1. F vic- ("Se � a. Y e s e ve.f"-a.. '7 c ✓t •L C�itM S w L L 1 �J a YAOL4-ice gearA c4 Ccou-&A C w�. ?---CL VAtyC- � Lkr v e_. o � 3 J� C,L L C. 0- C e 8 "7 2--1 _t o v% T TV L 5 at vt 4t -LA 5,11-M 9 cc tr Sou>S.3 gAr AkKP-+L& Y, e- 0 (Giu� k L C�� a�plj +o a t all .as atAb SK�PadF s�rk lu�e5 0� �a�- Gow�wA.P..✓c,V0.� V, G, CHARLES J. CORBALLY (1966) JOHN J. GARTLAND, JR. RICHARD V. CORBALLY ALLAN E. RAPPLEYEA DANIEL F. CURTIN+ FRED W.SCHAEFFER JON HOLDEN ADAMS MICHAEL G. GARTLAND VINCENT L. DEBIASE PAUL O. SULLIVAN+ JOSEPH F. HAWKINS COUNSEL +MEMBER N.Y. AND FLORIDA BAR CORBALLY, GARTLAND AND RAPPLEYEA BARDAVON BUILDING 35 MARKET STREET POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK 12601 914-454-1110 Town Board Town of Wappinger Wappingers Falls, July 24, 1979 New York 12590 Dear Members of the Board: . '-I-�-•.cIVED J U L 2 5 1979 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN FLORIDA OFFICE: 50 SOUTH BELCHER ROAD BUILDING E. SUITE 122 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33515 813-461-3144 BRANCH OFFICE: BANK OF MILLBROOK BUILDING FRANKLIN AVE. MILLBROOK, NEW YORK At the last regular meeting of the Town Board, you asked us to review the question of whether or not the summary of the zoning ordinance could be published rather than publishing the entire ordinance again in its entirety as apparently required by Town Law §264 and 265. We have reviewed this matter and have obtained the attached opinion of the Attorney General. We find no cases that would indicate that the position adopted by him in that letter is not well-founded. Accordingly, it is our recommendation that the full text be published to avoid any suspicians in the future as to the validity of the zoning ordinance and to avoid a in table results that might follow as a result n Very pi-uly fount/, CORZALLY, //CAR7LKND & Jon HQ(lden Adams JHA/lh Enc. TOWN LAW, §§ 133, 264 and 265; MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW, §§ 2 and 10. Local legislation relating to zoning -ordinances, or amendments thereto, adopted without post -publication thereof in full, may be subject to attack as unconstitutional. Telephone 474-7651 February 10, 1972 Mr. Donald C. Andrus Supervisor, Town of Leray Jefferson County 130 Maple Street Black River, New York 13612 Dear Sir: This is in reply to your letter -dated January 24, 1972 regarding publication of a proposed town zoning ordinance. The provisions regarding publication of a town zoning ordinance are contained in Town Law, § 264, as follows: "Every zoning ordinance and every amendment to a zoning ordinance (including any map incorporated therein) adopted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be entered in the minutes of the town board and a copy thereof (exclusive of any map incorporated therein) shall be published once in a newspaper published in the town, if=any,.or in such news- paper published in the county in which such town may be located having a circulation in such town, as the town board may designate, * * *." The above statutory provisions.requiring publication in a newspaper published in the town, -if any, or in such newspaper published in the county in which such town maybe located having a circulation in such town, are mandatory (Town of Almond v. Penfold, 58 Misc 2d 780 [1969] 296 NYS 2d 619). (over) Mr. Donald C. Andrus Inasmuch as a special statute, namely, L. 1.934, ch. 686, authorizes any town in Monroe County to publish a summary description of a town ordinance "Any law to the contrary not- withstanding" Town Law, § 264, must be deemed to be a special law"and not a general law in that it does not in terms and in effect apply alike to all towns (Municipal Home Rule Law, § 2, subd. 5). This being so, any other town may adopt a local law providing for publishing a summary description of an ordinance rather than the ordinance in full as required by Town Law, § 133 (relating to general town ordinances), and §§ 264 and 265 (relating to zoning ordinances and amendments to zoning ordi- nances), in accordance with authority granted to local gov- ernments by Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10, subd. 1.(i). However, in relation to zoning ordinances and amendments thereto, it has been held that in view of the fact that such ordinances restrict the constitutional common law rights of property owners the procedure prescribed by the Legislature must be strictly followed. Thus, while the Court dial not pass upon the post -publication requirements as to zoning ordinances contained in §§ 264 and 265 supra, for the reason that the issue in the case was the publication of the Notice of Hearing required by section 264 supra, previous to the adoption of such ordinances, nevertheless, caution is advised with respect to the adoption of a local law providing for publication of summaries of zoning ordinances and amendments thereto rather than publication of such ordinances in full (Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. v. Town of Orangetown, et al., 28 A D 2d 899 [19671 282 NYS 2d 977). In view of the above I conclude that local legislation relating to zoning ordinances, or amendments thereto, adopted without post -publication thereof in full, may be subject to attack as unconstitutional. The Attorney General is authorized to render formal and official opinions to officers and departments of the State government only. Necessarily, therefore, the foregoing is not to be considered a formal opinion of the Attorney General but is an informal and unofficial expression of view ai_ven with the desire to be help =ul to you. r Very truly yours, LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ Attorney General By WILLIAM A. CARERO A;�sistant Attorney General C%''ERO/jmd 2. Inasmuch as a special statute, namely, L. 1.934, ch. 686, authorizes any town in Monroe County to publish a summary description of a town ordinance "Any law to the contrary not- withstanding" Town Law, § 264, must be deemed to be a special law"and not a general law in that it does not in terms and in effect apply alike to all towns (Municipal Home Rule Law, § 2, subd. 5). This being so, any other town may adopt a local law providing for publishing a summary description of an ordinance rather than the ordinance in full as required by Town Law, § 133 (relating to general town ordinances), and §§ 264 and 265 (relating to zoning ordinances and amendments to zoning ordi- nances), in accordance with authority granted to local gov- ernments by Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10, subd. 1.(i). However, in relation to zoning ordinances and amendments thereto, it has been held that in view of the fact that such ordinances restrict the constitutional common law rights of property owners the procedure prescribed by the Legislature must be strictly followed. Thus, while the Court dial not pass upon the post -publication requirements as to zoning ordinances contained in §§ 264 and 265 supra, for the reason that the issue in the case was the publication of the Notice of Hearing required by section 264 supra, previous to the adoption of such ordinances, nevertheless, caution is advised with respect to the adoption of a local law providing for publication of summaries of zoning ordinances and amendments thereto rather than publication of such ordinances in full (Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. v. Town of Orangetown, et al., 28 A D 2d 899 [19671 282 NYS 2d 977). In view of the above I conclude that local legislation relating to zoning ordinances, or amendments thereto, adopted without post -publication thereof in full, may be subject to attack as unconstitutional. The Attorney General is authorized to render formal and official opinions to officers and departments of the State government only. Necessarily, therefore, the foregoing is not to be considered a formal opinion of the Attorney General but is an informal and unofficial expression of view ai_ven with the desire to be help =ul to you. r Very truly yours, LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ Attorney General By WILLIAM A. CARERO A;�sistant Attorney General C%''ERO/jmd COVER SHEET DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED 1979 COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE FOR TOWN OF WAPPINGERS, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK Prepared at Request of Town Board, Town of Wappinger. Further Information May be Obtained From Louis D. Diehl, Supervisor 914-297-2744 Impact Statement Prepared By Ecolsciences, Inc., One Bank Street Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 Impact Statement Accepted by the Town of Wappingers on December �,$ , 1979 Any Comments Must be Submitted In Writing to the Town Clerk of the Town of Wappingers On or Before +r AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK In Conformance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act Approved by: Prepared by: EcolSciences, inc. 1 Bank Street Rockaway, N. J. 07866 Submitted by: a Peter R. Si�ger Louise M. alagan Regional Man December, 1979 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I. NEED AND PURPOSE ................................. 3 Introduction .................................. 3 Town Development Plan ......................... 3 Planning Goals and Policies ................... 3 Definitions................................... 9 II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................ 11 III• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION..... 13 IV. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ...................... 20 V. ALTERNATIVES ..................................... 21 VI. MITIGATING MEASURES .............................. 22 VII. GROWTH -INDUCING AGENTS ........................... 26 VIII. PROPOSED ACTION ON USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY ........................................ 27 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A ........................................... 28 APPENDIX B ........................................... 29 i LIST OF FIGURES No. Page 1 Town of Wappinger, Areas 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, and 6 ............... 14 2 Town of Wappinger, Areas 7, 8, and 9 .................................. 15 3 Town of Wappinger, Areas 10, 11, and 12 ................................ 16 4 Town of Wappinger, Areas 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20............ 17 LIST OF TABLES 1 Areas Affected by Proposed ZoningChanges ............................ 18 ii SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The framework for the proposed zoning ordinance for the Town of Wappinger is the Town Development Plan adopted on February 11, 1974. The Plan elaborates on five goals that give careful consideration to numerous development alterna- tives for future growth in the Town. New definitions in the proposed ordinance and the expansion of them into additional provisions indicates that the proposed zoning ordinance is more comprehensive in nature than the existing ordinance. Zoning -up, zoning -down, and changing the zoning character play an important role in the proposed ordinance. The trade-off between them, however, is well balanced and con- forms to both the intents of the development plan and en- vironmentally sound planning. Implementation of the proposed ordinance will have unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, although the proposed zoning changes clearly reflect environ- mental considerations and mitigating measures. The proposed ordinance includes mitigating measures which clearly indicate a distinct interest on behalf of the Town to' address environmental concerns and to relieve or minimize the potential for adverse impacts. In analyzing the effects of up -zoning, the Town of Wappinger has carefully examined and considered such impacts and has chosen the alternative that best satisfies the needs of its community presently and in the future. M M Thus, based on the comprehensiveness, the absence of irreversible impacts, the mitigating measures, and the envir- onmentally sound planning that composes the proposed plan, it is recommended that the proposed zoning ordinance be implemented as prescribed. r. rr I. NEED AND PURPOSE Introduction Under Local Law No. 2 of 1972, there is a need to measure the environmental impact of the proposed zoning ordinance .. against the standard created by the existing zoning ordinance. It is for this purpose that this Environmental Impact Statement analyzes these changes and examines whether they are in conform- ance with comprehensive planning as it relates to environmental concerns. Town Development Plan The attached resolution was adopted on February 11, 1974. The resolution adopts the Town Development Plan in order "to serve as a guide to future growth and development with the Town of Wappinger, and commends it to the use of the County and regional planning agencies as the recommended local policy to be followed in the Town of Wappinger." It is this resolution that forms the framework for the proposed zoning ordinance for the Town of Wappinger. Planning Goals and Policies According to the Town Plan, the following statement of goals and policies is based upon the series of preliminary studies which covered all facets of the Town's future growth and gave careful consideration to numerous development alterna- tives. They are intended to form the basis to guide future development in the Town, as described in the Wappinger Develop- ment Plan. 3 r. TOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN TOWN OF WAPPINGER DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION At a meeting of the Town of Wappinger Planning Board, held on February 11, 1974, at 8:00 P.M. at the Wappinger Town Hall, the following members being in attendance: Robert Steinhaus, Chairman James V. Porter Donald J. Keller Arthur J. Walker Dr. Harvey Miller the following motion was moved by Arthur J. Walker, seconded by Dr. Harvey Miller, and adopted by a unanimous vote of the five members present. WHEREAS, the Town of Wappinger Planning Board has been participating in a long range planning program, with the assistance of Frederick P. Clark Associates of Rye, New York, as its planning consultants in this program, and WHEREAS, the Town of Wappinger Planning Board and Legislative Body has participated in the preparation of an Areawide Plan, jointly adopted June 6, 1973 by the Town of Wappinger and four other municipalities in the Southern Dutchess Area, the City of Beacon, the Town of Fishkill and the Villages of Fishkill and Wappingers Falls, and WHEREAS. the Town of Wappinger Development Plan has accepted the Area Development Plan as the general guide for the goals of the Area, and the Town Development Plan has been basically modeled upon it, and WHEREAS. the Town of Wappinger Town Board appointed members to a Citizens Advisory Committee, which members are representative of numerous organizations and interest groups in the Town, and which members attended and were involved in the planning and public meetings, and WHEREAS, the Town of Wappinger Planning Board has been meeting on a regular basis for the past three and one-half years for the purpose of working on and reviewing preliminary studies which have been prepared by the consultants on various planning factors in the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town of Wappinger Planning Board has conducted numerous public information meetings, including two final public hearings on the proposed Town development Plan, held on October 10, 1973 and November 10, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. at the Roy C. Ketcham High School, Wappinger, and WHEREAS, there has been widespread dissemination of information regarding the proposed Town Development Plan and the preliminary studies, including distribution of report copies to various appointed and elected officials in the Town, to members of the Citizens Advisory Committee, in the Grinnell Library and the municipal building for public review, to the press and other media, including specially prepared news releases summarizing the planning studies, and WHEREAS, all people appearing at the public meetings and hearings who wished to be heard, were heard, NOW, Till: RF,FORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Wappinger Planning Board hereby adopts the Town Development Plan, prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, dated February, 1974, to serve as a guide to future growth and development with the Town of Wappinger, and commends it to the use of the County and regional planning agencies as the recommended local policy to be followed in the Town of Wappinger. DATED: February 11, 1974 do an 4 M M • GOAL 1 Balance Growth: Opportunity for Choice The Town should offer its inhabitants and newcomers the greatest possible range of opportunities for shelter, services and social needs. Basic freedom of choice is best preserved in a socially balanced environment where the choices of interaction or isolation in a community are within the realm determined by the individual's rrr initiative to exercise his freedom and to choose his own sphere of interaction. Policies A. Housing should be provided across a wide range of size, type and character; densities of housing areas should allow for considerable variation. B. Variety in the opportunities for employment within the community and ease of movement and freedom of access to surrounding employment centers should be provided. C. Community services for all age groups should be provided consistent with the economic growth of the Town and its available resources. • GOAL 2 Optimum Land Use and Physical Amenity The most desirable use of land should be sought based upon people's needs, locational significance r. 5 r7 and physical characteristics. Physical amenities of facil- ities, utilities and roads should be rationally supplied to adequately serve the various land uses. A. Land should be distributed in a compatible arrange- ment so that conflicts between various uses are avoided and so that harmonious land uses are en- couraged to locate near each other. Enough land should be set aside to accommodate the anticipated commercial and industrial development. B. A sound system of utility services including common water and sewage systems should be provided, particularly for developed areas. C. An integrated and efficient transportation system consistent with the overall areawide development pattern should be provided for to assure the effec- tive and economic movement of people and goods within and through Wappinger. • GOAL 3 Community Identity and Cohesion The gathering of economic, governmental and social activ- ities into a hierarchy of suburban centers should be fostered to provide a greater sense of identity and community. The provision of future growth in clusters around the existing hamlets can preserve open space, economically provide for 1.1 ,rr public facilities and utilities, and can create the advantages of providing a single place where the people living around the center can take care of their day-to-day needs. Policies A. The clustering of residential uses should be related to the hamlet centers with higher densities adjacent to the hamlets. B. Maintain the hamlet areas as local centers of acti- vity which would not detract or be competitive with major historic centers in surrounding areas, such as Wappinger Falls. • GOAL 4 im Open Space and Natural Resource Preservation An open space system of sufficient size and locational +rr qualities must be provided to meet the complete range of recreational needs for the people and to reserve adequate w areas for the protection of water related resources, wild r life, and land forms of particular environmental value. Policies do A. Areas of ecological importance such as water bodies, wetlands, aquifers, slopes, hilltops, and valuable wild life areas should be preserved through conser- vation -type zoning techniques. B. Development density should be reasonably related to land capabilities with lower densities maintained r on lands least able to support intensive uses. 7 irr +r. C. Adequate recreational facilities of various types should be provided throughout the Town in accessible locations. • GOAL 5 .ri Public Awareness and Participation The use of freedom and opportunity depends heavily upon �r. adequate information and the ability to participate in local decision making processes. The identification of the human consequences of alternative public actions, including iden- tification of positive social and cultural values to be pre- served, as well as social costs and benefits of alternative courses of action must receive wide exposure so that those who are affected have an understanding of such factors and as the opportunity to express their views prior to the decision making process. A. Information on planning decisions should be made through a wide variety of channels: the local press and communications systems, the schools, and through various religious, health, social, and club organizations. B. Flexibility in Town governmental procedures and in- stitutions should be sought to ensure greater con- structive citizen participation and involvement in the planning process and to foster leadership in all groups, especially those neglected in public 8 do decision making because of gaps in organization, leadership, articulation of values and needs, or economic status. +rr C. The Town should speak for itself through its plan. rr The development of genuine local centers of acti- vity and adequate community and recreational facil- ities in residential areas which relate to each other and to the hamlet centers through an integral open space system can help create a sense of commun- ity and identity where some factors of isolation and alienation might be minimized and where a sense of awareness, incentives for participation in neighbor- hood decision making processes and opportunities for interaction with one's neighbor, if desired, can be maximized. The Town Development Plan provides a land use framework for the proposed zoning ordinance. It is assumed, therefore, rr that local zoning should be proposed and implemented in accord- ance with the resolution, adopted on February 11, 1974, and in accordance with what is presented in the Town Development Plan. Definitions New definitions have been added to Article II - Definitions of the proposed zoning ordinance which is in direct conformance to the planning goals and policies previously stated for the r. Town of Wappinger (see Appendix A). These additions also indi- cate that the proposed zoning ordinance is more comprehensive 9 in nature than the existing ordinance and intends to better clarify and elucidate the proposed ordinance. It is through these additional definitions and then the expansion of them into additional provisions in the proposed ordinance that planning for orderly growth can be accomplished. Through zoning, r neighborhood development and growth patterns can be monitored, and ultimately controlled. 10 M to 40 II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Town is generally rectangular in shape with its western boundary stretching approximately three miles along the Hudson River. The Town of East Fishkill lies along the eastern bound- ary, separated by Sprout Creek. Wappinger Creek forms the northern boundary between the Town of Wappinger and the Towns of Poughkeepsie and LaGrange, and the Town of Wappinger abuts the Town of Fishkill on its southern boundary. Total area is 16,624 acres. The Town of Wappinger has a moderate relief, with numerous small hills and valleys characteristic of glacial deposition and/or erosion. A large plain, about 200 ft. (60.8 m) in ele- vation, runs through the center of the town. Significant areas of steep slopes (greater than 15%) are found in southern Wappinger east of Route 9, south of Wappingers Falls between the Hudson River and Route 90, and north of Route 376. Narrow floodplains border Wappinger and Sprout Creeks and are important both as flood control and aquifer recharge areas. Wappinger Creek is one of the major drainage basins in Dutchess County, and is periodically subjected to severe flooding. Sprout Creek is also subject to flooding; however, conditions are usually less severe due to the smaller drainage area. Because of the large deposits of sand and gravel, the Wappinger and Sprout Creek floodplains are the most significant aquifer recharge zones in the Town of Wappinger. 11 Yrr +rr Wetlands of varying size are scattered throughout the town. Greenfly and Top Swamp, the largest wetland areas, are located in southern Wappinger on either side of Route 9. Much of Wappinger is characterized by prime agricultural soils. Most significant in terms of active agriculture is the r`. portion of the town north of Route 376. The majority of this .r. area is on prime agricultural soils. Throughout the rest of the town, patches of prime agricultural soils are found, but wr because of limited size, existing development, and zoning, such land is unsuitable for large-scale farming. do 12 .r. to III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 10 Approximately 1% of the land in the town is affected by changes in the revised zoning ordinance and map. Zoning +rr changes affect twenty areas as shown in Figures 1-4 and summar- ized in Table 1. Three basic types of zoning changes are "zoning up" to a higher density (residential), "zoning down" to a lower density (residential), and changing the zoning character, for example, from industrial to residential. Up -zoning is proposed in nine areas (Nos. 2, 4A, 5B, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17). In general, these areas are presently developed and the proposed zoning would allow for filling in at higher densities. Because of the developed character, short term environmental effects of such changes would be +`r insignificant. However, long term effects - local increases in traffic and increased demands for public services - must be r considered. Area 5B is located almost totally on steeply slop- rr. ing land. Increased density on this area could have significant adverse environmental impacts (due to erosion and runoff) unless r strict controls on construction techniques and landscaping are instituted to prevent such damages. Down -zoning is proposed in eight areas (Nos. 5A, 10, 12, 13, r„ 14, 15, 19, and 20). These areas are characterized by a limited amount of development, significant amounts of steeply sloping land, wetlands, and prime agricultural land. The intent of the proposed lower densities is the protection of these environmen- tally sensitive areas. In effect, this lowered density should. r tend to discourage large-scale development in these sensitive 13 im +1w to r FIGURE 1. Town of Wappinger Southern Dutchess Planning Area Proposed Zoning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, and 6 14 as FIGURE 2 Town of Wappinger Southern Dutchess Planning Area Proposed Zoning Areas 7, 8, and 9 15 �� � �. % , _ . =% r..,__ -,.rte, �. t - . - • - ; _ ;, .,._�-;� . \ JI p _� \ F .Y •' .� tet. _ k R 40 � _ � .rte. ,.r - J � t _. - . � ;�,,�tx t �,' - •/ r - r _ � j All 20 FIGURE 3 Town of Wappinger Southern Dutchess Planning Proposed Zoning Areas 10, 11, and 12 R-2 { __ to -,a 9 IV - A -0 . ' c _ 20 HB,) A R0 izr 80' - R-40 20 Town of Wappinger FIGURE 4. Southern Dutchess Planning Area Proposed Zoning Areas 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 TABLE 1 amTABLE Affected by Proposed Zoning Changes Existing Proposed Area Zoning Zoning Environmental Setting err 1 Ind. R-20 Vacant developable land (UDL) 2 R-20 R-10 Developed 3 Ind. R-20/ VDL and steep slopes eastern a R-40 4A R-40 RMF -5 Developed 4B C RMF -5 Developed 5A R-40 R-80 h steep slopes; developed ' 5B R-40 RMF -5 Steep slopes 6 C R-20 Developed ar 7 R-20 RMF -5 Developed 8 R-20 RMF -3 Developed, �r 9 R-20 RMF -5 Developed 10 R -20/C R-40 80% UDL and developed; remainder is prime ag, steep slopes, wet- lands r 11 R-40 RMF -5 Developed 12 Ind. R-40 Northern portion prime; small patches of wetlands. Remainder UDL r 13 C R-20 Prime ag 14 R-15 R-40 VLD, immediately adjacent to, existing dev. 15 R-40/ R-80 Extensive steep slope, wetland R-20 SW; remainder is developed rr 16 R-20 RMF -5 Developed, steep slopes in southern corner rf 17 R-20 R-10 Developed 18 R-20 H-B2A Developed rr 19 R-15 R-20 Prime ag, NE corner steep slopes r 20 R-40 R-80 Wetlands prime ag; western developed 18 VA `o areas and conforms to both the intents of the development plan and environmentally sound planning. as Changes in zoning character is proposed in seven areas (Nos. 1, 3, 4B, 6, 12, 13, and 18). With the exception of Area 18, the proposed change is industrial or commercial to residential zoning. Four of these changes from industrial or commercial to residential zoning better characterize their surrounding areas, i.e. Nos. 1, 3, 12, and 13 would now be totally surrounded by present residential areas. Areas 4B and 6 are commercially developed and the proposed changes will result in a mixed commercial residential area. Areas 1, 3, 12, and 13 are on vacant developable and/or environmentally sensi- tive land. Area 18, now residentially developed, is proposed for highway strip development. Impacts of strip development of this type may be significant with respect to competition with business in the hamlet centers and increased traffic and congestion due to ingress and egress problems which may arise. It should be noted that approximately 522 acres of environ- mentally sensitive land exists in three of the proposed zoning areas, e.g., (5A) R-40 to R-80; (15) R -40/R-20 to R-80; and r• (20) R-40 to R-80. These areas are now down -zoned and have a r lower density than in the existing ordinance, indicating sound rr environmental planning. Another example of such sound planning in the ordinance is the zoning change of Area 12 from industrial to R-40. Area 12 is already partially developed and is bordered rr more than 50% by R-40 zoning. This change now allows for con- tiguous residential development in the northeast section of the Town. 19 M IV. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed ordinance will have unavoid- able adverse environmental effects which cannot.be avoided, rr. although the proposed zoning changes do reflect environmental considerations and mitigating measures. For example, down - zoning proposed for certain environmentally sensitive areas will reduce and discourage development, but cannot eliminate development on these areas. ft 20 771 V. ALTERNATIVES Changes in the proposed zoning ordinance are more com- prehensive than the existing zoning ordinance. Revisions have been made in the best interest of the community, in conjunction with the Town Development Plan, creating no im adverse impacts that are irreversible in nature. The pro- posed ordinance clearly addresses environmental concerns not present in the existing ordinance and includes mitiga- ting measures as well, should such adverse impacts occur during growth development. up 21 VI. MITIGATING MEASURES The proposed ordinance includes regulatory measures which ft are intended to minimize adverse impacts associated with devel- opment. Included in the General Regulations (Section 410) which apply in all zoning districts are specific requirements for: • development in the 100 year floodplain (411.5, 411.6) • landscaping, screening, and buffer areas (415.2) • development on wetlands or steep slopes (419) The site development plan must include appropriate plans for the protection of the site's environment during the course of construction, including erosion control, protection of exis- ting vegetation, noise control, limits on hours of operation, access routes for construction vehicles, and other similar measures as may be appropriate in each individual case (450.2). am The following sections of the proposed ordinance are du intended to minimize adverse impacts associated with development. It should be noted that five of these sections (419, 426, 441, 460, 484) in the proposed ordinance are new sections which are not present in the existing ordinance. This clearly indicates' do a distinct interest on behalf of the Town to address environ- mental concerns with mitigating measures to relieve or minimize the potential for adverse impacts. Section 419 WETLANDS AND STEEP SLOPES, in conformance with Goal 4 of the Town Development Plan (TDP), includes no alteration of M 22 rr e•! wetlands -or water courses, water levels, or flow of such wet- lands or water courses without review as to the effect of such alteration. Section 425 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, in conformance with Goal 3 of the TDP, includes establishment of balanced neigh- borhoods and increased opportunities for flexible land use and design regulations commensurate with the general rate of Town growth. Section 426 RECREATIONAL USE DEVELOPMENT, in conformance with Goal 4 �+ of the TDP, includes promoting orderly growth of recreational facilities and flexibility toward land use for recreational purposes by not limiting recreational uses to specific areas of the Town. +rr Section 436 CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS, ensuring initial and continual' conformance to all applicable standards and requirements. r Section 437 ACTION BY BUILDING INSPECTOR that a building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued when conditions as required have been met. 23 aw Section 441 LAND FILLING, REGRADING, AND REMOVAL OF EARTH MATERIAL, in conformance with Goal 2 of the TDP, includes the regrading, earth moving, excavation and filling operations where required or previously approved. Section 450 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL includes the procedures and approval of a site plan as required by the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 460 STANDARDS REGULATING DEVELOPMENT IN FLOOD -PRONE AREAS, in conformance with Goal 4 of the TDP, includes securing safety from flood, prevention of property damage and loss, and restricting development in the flood -prone areas. Section 473 do LOCATION, USE, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE, In conformance with Goal 2 of the TDP, includes the location of do required parking and loading spaces, the size of the parking 40 spaces, and landscaping surrounding the off-street parking spaces. o .n Section 484 LIQUID OR SOLID WASTES, in conformance with Goal 2 of the TDP, includes the discharge of wastes to be permitted only in accordance with the Dutchess County Department of Health, and the 24 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and other regulatory agencies. Section 485 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, in conformance with Goal 2 of the TDP, includes no non-residential use to be permitted where determined by the Town Board that the type and number of vehicle trips is estimated to generate unusual traffic hazards or congestion, or cause or induce emissions which may be expected to interfere with the maintenance of air quality standards established. 25 VII. GROWTH -INDUCING AGENTS Areas which are proposed for development at greater than rr presently zoned densities would have a growth -inducing effect e.g., areas 2, 4A, 5B, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17. Several areas that also have a growth -inducing effect are areas that were previously zoned for industry or, commercial and new zoned for residential development, e.g., areas 1, 3, 4B, 6, 12, 13, and air 18. Six areas under the proposed ordinance have been down -zoned i.e., 5A, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20. The change in total allowable population from the proposed ordinance as compared to the exis- ting ordinance is calculated as a decrease of approximately 1,500 people living within the Town. This result should be characterized as a positive impact to the community, for it allows zoning to follow more closely the neighborhood or cluster/ rural concept. This concept is beneficial to the municipality in that services tend to be easily distributed and more economi- cal. This proposed ordinance provides for increased availabil- ity of low -to -moderate income range housing. This is a social well-being goal that has to be weighed by the municipality rrr against the loss of physical environmental resources. It appears that the Town of Wappinger has carefully examined and considered the impacts of this up -zoning and has chosen the alternative that best satisfies the needs of its community presently and in the future. r W 26 VIII, PROPOSED ACTION ON USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY The proposed changes are administrative and not directly No applicable to energy use. 771 do 27 ow as AM no APPENDIX A New Definitions in the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Building, Area Building, Coverage Building, Height Corner Lot Decibel Density Unit Designed Residential Development Dust Dwelling Unit - Attached Dwelling Unit - Detached Factory Manufactured Home Fast Food Establishment Flood 100 -Year Flood Floor Area, Gross Floor Area, Ratio Frequency Greenhouse House Trailer Impact Vibration Kennel - Commercial Kennel - Private Medical Clinic Octave Bank Octave Band Filter Particulate Matter Planned Unit Development Porch Ringelmann Smoke Chart School, Private School, Public Smoke Smoke Unit Steady - State Vibrations Sound Level Meter Stable, Private Stable, Public Street Line Swimming Pool Terrace Three Component Measuring System Toxic or Noxious Matter Trailer Travel Trailer Use, Principal Wetland Water Course MR APPENDIX B References as Clark, Frederick P. Associates. 1974. Town of Wappinger Development Plan. Dutchess County Department of Planning. Undated. Concept + for Growth. Dutchess County Department of Planning. 1974. Data Book - ,, Dutchess County, N. Y. Dutchess County Department of Planning. October 1979. Memo .r and Comments on Proposed Zoning Ordinance from Richard Birch. State Environmental Quality Review. 1978. Part 617. err Town of Wappinger. Jan. 29, 1963. Zoning Ordinance Pro- visions for an Ordinance Establishing a Comprehensive Zoning Plan for the Town of Wappinger, N. Y. Town of Wappinger. April 1979. Proposed Zoning Ordinance. r. WN 29 as