1990-01-22
CSo,lo,lI5SIC~;E::l.
"~/~
~
THE COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
LUCILLE P PATTISON, COUNTY EXECUTIVE
..
cU
27 HIGH 5TREET
POUGHKEEPSIE. N,Y, 12601
TELEPHONE 19141485.9681
CEPA.RTME~T OF PLANNING
.>, ROGER P AKELEY AICP
ERiC W GILLERT AICP
455,5,':'''' T CO,",~15SICr'.ER
January 22, 1990
-~-," -,
;, d( '.
L ..:.,.-
Constance O. Smith
Supervisor, Town of Wappinger
20 Middlebusn Road
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590-0324
~~I'\ ?~ 90
Dear Ms. Smith:
.-
It is the opinion of the Dutchess County Department of Planning that the
proposed Wappinger Zoning Ordinance was defeated on December 14, 1990
even though it received three favorable votes. Because of the county
objections, four votes (a super majority) were needed to approve the
ordinance.
The minutes indicate that Wappinger went through the unusual procedure
of voting on each response to the county's objections. While this
procedure seems to make it clear how each individual stood on the
issues, it is not a substitute for the vote to enact the zoning
ordinance. As I read the minutes, the several votes taken prior to vote
on the ordinance and amendments were no more than "straw'l votes. They
were not votes to pass on or amend the Wappinger Zoning Ordinance and
did not, in any way, cancel the need to comply with Section 239
requirements.
The clerk appears to have been correct in her assessment that the motion
failed (p. 14) because the Planning Department's conditions pertain to
the zoning motion itself, not to a list of responses.
Incidentally, in reading page 14 of the minutes, it appears that there
may not have been a valid motion. I don't see a second to Ms. Paino1s
liloti on, and I don I t see three "ayes, II even if they were intended.
Please note that opinions of the Planning Department are no substitute
for a legal opinion. Good luck in resolYA:J--gtn;- matter. Please/,
contact me ; f you have any further ques~~ns. j) Ii ,i
sfncer {I ./
, / ....
\ . I ,';
\ {'. 1\ ,J I , '/ 'j/"j1
;\J' ~ ,,{ -"/"j
Roger/Pi Akeley
Commi 55.i oner of Pl ann i ng ,
RPA/cs
cc: Ian MacDonald
County Attorney
THE COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
LUCILLE P PATTISON COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPART~ENT OF PLANNING
27 HIGH STREET
POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. 12601
TELEPHONE (9141 485.9681
P;)GER P. AKELEY Alep
C:Jl,1~15SI0NE;:(
ERIC W GILLERT AICP
4SSiST;'NT COMMISSiQ"lER
January 22, 1990
i
LJ
Constance O. Smith
Supervisor, Town of Wappinger
20 Middlebush Road
Wappi ngers Fa 11 s, NY 12590-0324
J~~ 7!; 90
Dear Ms. Smith:
It is the opinion of the Dutchess County Department of Planning that the
proposed Wappinger Zoning Ordinance was defeated on December 14, 1990
even though it received three favorable votes. Because of the county
objections, four votes (a super majority) were needed to approve the
ordinance.
"-
The minutes indicate that Wappinger went through the unusual procedure
of voting on each response to the county's objections. While this
procedure seems to make it clear how each individual stood on the
issues, it is not a substitute for the vote to enact the zoning
ordinance. As I read the minutes, the several votes taken prior to vote
on the ordi nance and amendments were no more than "straw" votes. They
were not votes to pass on or amend the Wappinger Zoning Ordinance and
did not, in any way, cancel the need to comply with Section 239
requirements.
The clerk appears to have been correct in her assessment that the motion
failed (p. 14) because the Planning Department's conditions pertain to
the zoning motion itself, not to a list of responses.
Incidentally, in reading page 14 of the minutes, it appears that there
may not have been a valid motion. I don't see a second to Ms. Paino's
!.loti on, and I don' t see three II ayes, II even if they were intended.
Please note that opinions of the Planning Department are no
for a 1 ega 1 Op1 nl on. Good 1 uck in reso 1 v;1fQth;-
contact me if you have any further ons.
S '~'ce
\
/"\~
RogeriPJ Akeley
Commi 55'; oner of Pl ann i ng
RPA/cs
cc: I an MacDonald
County Attorney