1989-10-23
; '"//"'."t, ':, t
'.. y/.,UJ ZBf;.'-"
,.Il.U ' -'
it 'f\,'Ui - I ::;"~1 Vr.:-;.:..: r .
~. ~:ARTMENT OF PLANNING 1u,^>'1 C:;;,.'~ ~"l.
) ~ / ; J
. ~'7U<'~~ '"- c-.... 'r;"'-c;;-;...
ROGER P AKELEY AICP L-. .
COMMISSIO",. / ,,,,,,"k... ;:> ~~...vo_
THE COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
LUCILLE P PAn:SGN CCUNTY EXECU,:VE
~7 H '.,' S'
;:l ,',.... i L;.....".. N y ~ 2.,0;
:!::_ ~ ;...f,',r. (914J 485.9681
ERIC W GILLERT. AICP
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
October 23, 1989
To: Town Board, Town of Wappinger
Re: Referral: 89-575, Proposed Amendments to the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance (Revision
dated September 1985)
The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed the
action cited above within the framework established under General
Municipal Law (Article 12B, Sections 239-1 and 239-m). That
review consist~d of an extensive analysis of the recently adopted
Town Comprehensive Plan, land use policies set down in the
county's comprehensive plan, previous zoning proposals with
county responses and the current amendments. Upon completion of
this review, the Department finds:
Re: commercial Districts
,
!l
(1) Zoning referral 89-206 dated May 10, 1989 (copy
attached) noted that the proposed zoning pattern along
the Route 9 corridor diverged significantly from the
land use policies articulated in the adopted Town of
Wappinger comprehensive Plan. That plan recommended
that commercial uses be strictly limited along Route 9
frontage in an effort to match land use intensity to
the highway's carrying capacity. Further, the plan
seeks to minimize the degradation of the corridor's
visual environment.
"
"
In order to implement these recommendations, the plan
called for reduction in commercial zoning and infilling
the current land use pattern with office parks and
offices. The zoning pattern along Route 9 reviewed in
Referral 89-206 eliminated vast areas of office zones
proposed in the plan and thousands of feet of frontage
and replaced them with highway business/commercial
zones. Although the currently proposed zoning pattern
reverses this action, no real improvement in the zoning
pattern has been made due to the expansion of the list
of uses permitted in the zone to include intensive
retail/commercial uses such as stores and shops for the
conduct of retail business, restaurants and
hotels/motels. In essence, the proposed zoning pattern
remains heavily commercial and is contrary to the Town
Plan.
,,~
.,
~~1
.~
.'1
,j
"J
~~
~.
It would also appear that a portion of one of the
town's most significant natural resources, the Greenfly
Swamp, has been partially zoned for highway commercial
uses. The commitment of such a unique environmental
resource to commercial uses is contrary to the Town
Plan and good land use management policies and sets a
precedent that endangers all of the town's natural
resources.
(2) Contrary to the plan's recommendations and the
department's previous referral response, the proposed
zoning maintains a lengthy strip of General Business
uses along the south side of New Hackensack Road
extending from the intersection of All Angels Road to
the Cross Court Tennis Club. Indeed, another parcel
has been added to this strip since the last review.
Much of this area is characterized by floodprone and
steep slope areas and should not be designated for
intensive commercial uses.
.
(3) The plan limits Hamlet Business uses to the west side
of Route 82 in Schwartoutville. The proposed zoning
designates both sides of Route 82 for these uses
including a large portion of the floodplain of the
Sprout Creek. This proposal is unwise from a traffic
safety as well as environmental perspective in that it
would encourage dangerous turning movements along Route
82 and would require filling of the floodplain - a
practice which results in increased flooding in
adjacent lands.
Re: Myers Corners PUD
(1) The current zoning proposal calls for eliminating the
PUD area from Myers Corners Road and replacing it with
an R-40 zone. We are concerned that the town's
opportunity to enhance Myers Corners' role in the
community will be lost if the town fails to place some
special designation on this site.
(2) As shown in the town's new Comprehensive Plan, the
growth management committee developed a carefully
thought-out plan for Myers Corners, to manage and
promote the area as a community center for eastern
Wappinger, with a mixture of recreation, residential,
commercial, office, institutional, and open space uses.
To link together the disconnected land use pattern that
exists now, the plan envisioned using the remaining
undeveloped parcels to provide attractive small-scale,
commercial uses on the north side of Myers Corners Road
east of the IBM facility. These would serve the
~"'.-,"",: ...--................,......-. ._.,~.~.,_._--.~...."'f7";.;J'\'!tIr
existing employment centers and residential
subdivisions as well as the future residents of
Cranberry Hills. This site was to be carefully
designed with outdoor plazas, small-scale shops,
harmonious architecture, extensive landscaping, and
connections with public walkways to nearby homes,
offices, and schools.
(3) What is necessary to implement the Myers Corners plan
goes beyond traditional zoning. Design standards
should be put in place, and creative developers with..
high standards and a willingness to work toward the
community's long-term goals should be sought. However,
the first step is choosing an appropriate zoning
designation. Designating the proposed mixed use area
R-40 will invite unimaginative development inconsistent
with the town's goals. Therefore, the town should
develop design standards for the mixed use site and,
for now, ,retain the PUD or similar performance zoning
designation to help ensure that it will have an
opportunity to use them.
Re: Environmental Features
(1) Although the Land Use Plan and natural limitations map
included in the Town Plan show significant areas of
land within the 100 year floodplain, the Zoning
Ordinance, one of the plan's primary implementation
tools, does not include zoning designations for
managing this key resource.
(2) Several large regulated wetland areas are proposed to
be included in zones which do not provide'for
conservation of these resources. These areas include
portions of Greenfly Swamp on the west side of Route 9
approximately a mile north of Fishkill and the area
south of MacFarlane Road near its intersection with Old
Route 9. Neither of these areas are recommended for
intensive use in the Town Plan.
Re: General Comments
(1) No statements of intent have been included as
introductions to each of the proposed districts. Such
statement aids in the understanding of the regulations,
simplify administration and can tie the Town Plan into
the zoning ordinance.
(2) As previously observed, numeric limits and m1n1mums are
often used throughout the proposed ordinance. It
remains unclear as to whether these numeric limits are
on individual establishments or an entire structure.
Re: Zoning Text
(1) section 322 remains unclear (See 3R 89-206, page 2,
last paragraph)
(2) Section 421.5 deals with Bulk Regulations for all
Residential Districts. The Department's previous
referral pointed out a potential problem with the
interpretation of that portion of the Schedule that
dealt with lot sizes in areas served with central
utilities. For those districts where lot sizes remain
constant regardless of the availability of central
utilities such as the R-80 zone, the lot requirement
(80,000 square feet) should be repeated in the Schedule
on the lines designated "with public water and sewer"
and "w/o public water and sewer." Inclusion of this
information will increase the readability of the
Schedule, reduce the potential for misunderstanding
and aid ~n ordinance administration.
Further, a sub-schedule designated as 421.5(A) has been
included to provide flexibility in lot sizes where lots
can be served by central utilities. Here, lot sizes
shown in the first column of the Schedule should be
referenced to the zone or zones within which the lot
would be conforming and the front yard setback should be
established according to the function and ownership of
the adjacent roadway. In this latter case, setbacks on
county or state roads or town collector roads should be
greater than interior subdivision streets.
~
~
~
~.~
..
(3) New car dealerships continue as a special permit use
within the Neighborhood Business District (Section
422.1). Such uses are not appropriate in neighborhood
centers and should be encouraged only' in Highway
Business areas. If current provisions are designed to
accommodate a particular land use problem that already
exists in the town, a more appropriate response from
the community planning point of view would be to make
the existing use non-conforming and strengthen the
creation of true neighborhood centers.
~~1
~d
::-.f
'"
:~~
.1-
'j
:~
,-
j
:!
~
....
..;~
,'1
'1
i~
(4) section 422.3 (Highway Business District) and
particularly item (8) provides for a range of retail
and personnel service uses that belong in neighborhood
and community centers. Inclusion of the uses in the
Highway business zone will only detract from the goal
of establishing strong neighborhood and community
centers, reduce the viability of the Neighborhood
Business zone, reduce the land available for needed and
appropriate highway business uses, and contribute to
..."
~..1
.:':~
.:;;
1
the intensification of land use particularly in the
Route 9 corridor where HB zoned land is prevalent. In
this latter case, this intensification can only occur
at the expense of highway capacity, safety and
community goals.
As previously stated in this referral, the list of
permitted and special permit uses within the Office
District (0) has been expanded to include numerous
retail, service and tourist/business service uses.
This expansion, which in effect commercializes the
office zone, is inconsistent with the policies of the
county plan and the goals of the Town Plan. Further,
it will significantly contribute to the intensification
of land use in the Route 9 corridor with implications
that have already been discussed.
(5) It would appear that the word "objectives" would be
more apPFopriate at the end of the first paragraph
in section 425.2.
"'
I
;J
I
:w.!
:~
(6) One option for providing affordable housing options is
the conversion of large, usually older, homes into two
or more dwelling units. Not only is this a method for
creating affordable housing, it can also provide income
for owner-occupants that improves their ability to own
a home and can result in visual improvements for older
housing stock. The current provisions, outlined in
Section 446.701, are unchanged from those received
earlier this year. They continue to be very
restrictive.
~"
~~
They require a m~n~mum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
In addition, the maximum density of two units per acre
and minimum size of 800 square feet will unduly limit
the number of units. Very large houses may be able to
accommodate four or more units, and it should be
considered that a single person can live very
comfortably in 600 square feet. Furthermore, the
restriction of this technique to houses built prior to
1962 is also unnecessarily limiting.
.~,
~-:~
':..
~\
o;l
~
~
;~J
.'ij
;,~
:~
,"1
'~"l
~
ij
~1
~~
~
",j
(7) Section 446.805 regulating temporary housing units
(ECHO units) is an important provision that will
contribute to meeting the unique housing needs of the
elderly. The section should be strengthened to include
a statement designating the owner of the principal unit
as the permit holder, a description of the permitting
process and a description of the process required to
revoke a permit.
',J
- .-~
~.~t:l
,1
,_._ _-.,-_.._.___,.~." _~.,_...., ~~7-- .....--. ""~"""'-':";'O--7':""'-'~"-~."-'"'''-----'''~''''''','<:"_''''''--''''' ....'. _.-...,_..__..-;:,.._..,~.,...._;--,.~.,.-.',-';~-
Re: Affordable Housing options
The current proposal is essentially unchanged from the
package of amendments offered in the spring of this year.
Its ordinance allows accessory apartments, ECHO units,
conversions, and the renting of rooms in single family
residential zones. Planned Unit Developments and Designed
Multiple Use Developments are allowed in most areas of the
town. Mobile home parks are allowed subject to town Board
approval.
However, none of these options address the affordable
housing problem directly. Allowing one or two additional
units on a small percentage of lots in low density
residential areas, as permitted by some of these techniques,
is not going to have a major impact on the availability
of housing for most people. The large planned developments
provided for in the ordinance do not allow any significantly
higher densit~es than the underlying districts. There are
no areas designated for truly "high density" housing, such
as six to ten units per acre. The R-10 districts and the
areas zoned for multi-family housing allow only three to
five units per acre and are near their maximum capacity.
The Town comprehensive Plan recommends an Affordable Housing
Floating Zone which would allow density bonuses on approved
sites if a certain percentage of units are permanently
restricted to affordable housing. As the plan states, this
would "help balance the effects of imposing a one- or
two-acre minimum lot size on most of the town." The plan
also recommends the use of the cluster development concept.
In addition, the densities allowed in the high density
districts are far below those possible with the provision of
central water and sewer. These areas could support eight or
ten units per acre. the provision of water and sewer
requires higher densities to avoid being cost-prohibitive.
.!
j
.,
One option might be to enhance the PUD provisions with a
stronger affordable housing objective and specific
performance criteria, such as a requirement that a
percentage of the units are affordable as defined by a local
ordinance.
-
-!Ill
j
l
~
~,
~
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the findings above, the Dutchess County Department of
Planning recommends that the proposed amendments as submitted not
be adopted until such time as the following modifications are
made and subjected to the provisions of General Municipal Law:
(1) Removal of commercial, retail and other non office uses from
uses in the Office (0) zone.
.'.__._"_ ___...,..._.,,__r___ _.-,'- .-. .-'
OJ
:1
'.
1
,
(2) Elimination of those areas of Highway Business zoning along
the west side of Route 9 that affect the Greenfly Swamp.
(3) A significant reduction in the length of the General
Business zone on the south side of New Hackensack Road near
its intersection with All Angels Road.
(4) Elimination of all Hamlet Business zoning east of Route 82
and within the floodplain of the Sprout Creek in the hamlet
of Schwartoutville.
~
;1
(5) Inclusion of zoning provisions to deal effectively with
floodprone areas.
:"1
<1
.,
"
"
"
-)
(6) Removal of highway business uses such as automobile
dealerships from the Neighborhood Business District.
(7) Creation of a district for high density housing (i.e.,
six to ten units per acre)
or
Creation of an affordable housing floating zone,
or
Amendment of the PUD to allow at least a 20 percent density
bonus for the provision of affordable housing.
~1
i
~~
(:j
..~
~"~
~'"
~.,'~::;
"
:~:j
~~~
:,';,~
,:.<1
'o"J
(8) Relaxation of standards for conversions of existing
dwellings.
(9) Inclusion of a PUD 'or use of other performance zoning
techniques on the Myers Corners site designated in the
comprehensive Plan as mixed office retail. The site is
located on the north side of Myers Corners Road west of its
intersection with All angels Hill Road.
'.'j
~
',;tj
.;~
';';'
~:~
!
~1~
,~
If the Board determines to act contrary to our "recommendation,
the law requires that it do so by a majority plus one of the full
membership and that it notify us of the reasons for its decision.
.1
"~
. ~'1
,;.
1
.,.1
..,~
:~
1
,]
.1
''}j
....
Roger P. Akeley
Commissioner of Planning
::~~l!!!!~
As~~:;tant Commissioner of Planning
R~7G/tll
....J
':'1
~-'~
~;~
~.,~~
~j ~ ~ p~ (o!6.3/8Cj
~jJ-() J;~, T7 C{uJc ( if I d-'-( f ge;
-'1
