1985-09-17 RGM
r
-....
c
II
I
AGENDA
TOWN BOARD
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
BIMONTHLY MEETING
TUESDAY
SEPTEMBER 17, 1985
I
!
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
!
1. SUPERVISOR CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2 . ROLL CALL
3. ACCEPT MINUTES;
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO FLAG
Sept. 3, 1985, Reg.
4. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
Town Justices
Zng. Adm. Zng. Enf. Officer
5. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS
a. John Schultz re: expenses in connection wi Sewer problem in May
b. Additional corr. from Stephen Rabbitt, Sup. Fishkill, re: Dump
off Brockway Rd.
c. Corr. from Recreation Comm. re: installing gate at Rockingham
Rec. area
d. Letter of Credit for Macgeorgs for landscaping
e. Hank Santis, Precision Contracting, request for return of
Bldg. permit application and W & S hookup fees for lots 8 & 9 at Cedar Creek
Estates
f. James R. Loeb, Attny, re: rescinding portion of July 1, '85
Res. regarding work to be done at Town Sewer Plants.
g. Memo from A. Garrison, Compt. re omission of funds from '85 ~
Budget for reimbursement to N.Y. City -(pump station)
h. Memo from County Office for the Aging re: appointment of represen -
ative on Advisory Bd for Dial-A-Ride.
II
'I
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
7. RESOLUTIONS
a. Sign Ordinance Amendment
b. Introduce Res. for correction of Rec. Problem - proscocution of
Tresspassers
c. Transfer requests from Compt.:
1. expenditure for Court Reporter
2. computor service
3. additional Insurance premiums
4. Administrative costs of Sewer & Water Dists to Gen. Fund
(re imbursemen t)
5. Installation of Floodlites-Schlathaus Pk. expend funds from
trust.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. R. Evangalista on Daniel Sabia Drive - improvements needed befor
toWn acceptance of Rd.
9. NEW BUSINESS'
I 10. ADJOURNMENT
I
i
l
L
l
~a
The Regular Bimonthly Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of
Wappinger was held on September 17, 1985 at the Town Hall, Mill
Street, Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County, New York.
Supervisor Versace opened the Meeting at 8:00 P.M.
Present:
Others Present:
Frank Versace, Supervisor
Renata Ballard, Councilwoman
Joseph Incoronato, Councilman
Gerard McCLuskey, Councilman
Irene Paino, Councilwoman
Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk
Bernard Kessler, Attorney
Michael Moskiewicz, Engineer
Kenneth Croshier, Highway
Superintendent
The Meeting started with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The Minutes of the Regular Bimonthly Meeting of September 3, 1985,
having previously been forwarded to all Board Members, were now
placed before them for their consideration.
MRS. PAINO moved that the Minutes of September 3, 1985 be and they
are hereby approved, as submitted by the Town Clerk.
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
Motion Unanimously Carried
Reports were received from the Town Justices for the month of August,
Zoning Administrator for the month of June and the Zoning Enforcement
Officer for August.
MRS. PAINO moved to accept these Reports and place them on file.
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
Motion Unanimously Carried
A letter was received from John Schultz regarding additional expenses
incurred due to a sewer back-up in May of 1985; this was a follow up
to his first letter requesting reimbursement for excavation and
installation of a new sewer line. At the May 6th, 1985 meeting the
Board requested that he submit an itemized list of the expenses
and it would be considered by the Board Members. The items listed
in this communication included rental of power snake, cleaning their
oriental rug and purchase of a new rug for the bathroom, total cost
of $262.00.
MRS. BALLARD moved to reimburse $262.00 to Mr. Schultz for expenses
itemized on his August 22, 1985 letter to the Board regarding the
sewer problem at his home.
Seconded by Mr. Incoronato
Motion Unanimously Carried
.\
,;.107
Mr. Versace requested that the original bill submitted by Mr. Schultz
in May of 1985 be placed on the agenda for the next meeting and the
Board would consider his request at that time.
A second communication was received from Supervisor Stephen Rabbitt
of Fishkill regarding the Town 's complaint of ,fire setting on Brockway
Road served by the Chelsea Fire Company.
Supervisor Rabbitt had
Ij,'"
II
previously advised the owners of this property to cease their landfill
operation which was a violation of a section of the State Law; in this
second communication to them he extended the time to October 4, 1985
to clean-up the property.
MR. VERSACE moved to receive this communication and place it on file.
Seconded by Mrs. Paino
Motion Unanimously Carried
The following letter was received from the Chairman of the Recreation
Commission:
September 11, 1985
Memo To:
From:
Re:
Town Board
Recreation Commission
Rockingham Recreation Area
ltj
g
At the August 29, 1985 meeting of the Recreation Commission,
we discussed at length the recommendation of the installation of
a gate at the above site. We don't recommend that a gate be
installed because the vandal patrol will not be able to properly
patrol the area. A lot of vandalism appears to be done by persons
who enter the park from the area of the creek. If a gate were
installed, it would deter the patrol from unlocking it to check
the area. We don't feel a gate is the answer but a more vigorous
patrol might help.
Signs have been placed at Rockingham at least 3 times this year
and they will be installed again.
sl Hugh J. Maurer, Chairman
Mrs. Ballard spoke of the vandalism problem in that area which has
increased in the last year possibly because the Soccer League was
using the field for their Spring and Fall season. One of the problems
is due to cars driving through the fields, and discussion was held
-
by the Recreation Commission on putting boulders along the fields to
discourage cars from entering this area. At her request, Mr. Maurer,
Chairman of the Commission had investigated the cost of fencing the
area from the entrance of the park parellel to the roadway going back
to the fields and connecting with the fence at the sewer plant and a
gate at the end of the macadem road. By putting the fence at this
location, it would prevent cars from entering thefield but would allow
L
l
L
C:<bcP
pedestrians to enter. The bids received were from A-I Fence Co.
for 235 feet of fence with two walk gates and one large opening
gate for $1,500.00, and from DeCar Backyard Fence at a cost of $2,200.00
She asked the Board Members to consider taking action on awarding this
bid tonight and not wait for the Recreation Commission to put boulders
along the field. She felt that the situation would not improve until
they fenced the area which would also keep the trespassers out of the
sewer plant location.
Mr. McCluskey thought they should make a few arrests for those that
are trespassing and perhaps that would discourage the vandalism.
The problem is that signs have to be posted which state that no
trespassing is allowed and that has been done numerous times but the
signs do not remain and therefore, the law cannot be enforced.
MRS. BALLARD moved to award the bid for fencing the Rockingham Area
to A-I Fence Company in the amount of $1,500.00 and the monies be
expended from the Park lands Trust Account.
Seconded by Mr. Incoronato
Motion Unanimously Carried
A lengthy discussion ensued on the problems existing at the Rockingham
site and other recreation locations in the Town. Mrs. Alberta Roe,
a resident of that area, was recognized by the Chair and stated that
the fence was not going to help that much, it might keep the cars out
but not the youth who are causing the vandalism. Mr. McCluskey
reiterated his statement that arrests should be made and referred the
matter to the Attorney who replied that the Town must be able to prove
that the intent to trespass was present and that is practically
impossible to do---how do you prove that the person or persons
deliberately intended to trespass on the land. He agreed that fencing
the area was a good start and they could take it from there.
Mrs. Ballard summarized the actions they would take to help alleviate
the problem--the fence would be installed, the "No Trespassing" sign
would be welded to the fence and the Sheriff's Department and the
Vandalism Patrol would be put on notice to patrol more frequently.
Mrs. Paino asked the Attorney if he had prepared a resolution to help
correct this problem and if not, when could the Board expect it.
Mrs. Paino asked the Attorney if he had prepared a resolution that
would help to correct the vandalism problem and if not when could the
Board expect to receive this document. Mr. Kessler replied that he
:Jb9
was planning to obtain input from other Towns that have similar
problems; he indicated that he was considering a local law rather
than a resolution and he would endeavor to have it ready for the
next Town Board meeting.
A Letter of Credit was submitted for William MacGeorge relating
station located on All Angels Hill Road and Park Hill Drive.
-
to the landscaping required by the Planning Board for his service
Mr. Kessler noted that this Letter of Credit is a revision of one
previously submitted by Mr. MacGeorge's Attorney and it is acceptable
in form but there is some ambiguity between this document and the
signed statement annexed to the Letter of Credit. The signed statement
stated that there remain six red maples and 11 Norway spruce trees to
be planted pursuant to the site plan. Mrs. Young has advised him that
there are 9 red maple trees to be planted. The Letter of Credit
states that "your signed statement that drawing is due to default or
failure of William MacGeorge or his agents to plant the remaining trees
(including six red maple and 11 Norway spruce trees)~ This statement
he felt would cover the ambiguity.
He recommended that the Board
-
accept the Letter of Credit with the provision that MacGeorge's
Attorney is agreeable to change the six red maple trees to nine red
maple trees.
Mr. Versace moved to accept the Letter of Credit on the recommendation
of the Attorney with the condition that the Attorney for Mr. MacGeorge
agrees to change the number of red maple trees from six to nine.
The motion was seconded by Mr. McCluskey
Prior to the vote Michael Hirkala, member of the Zoning Board of
Appeals, was recognized by the Chair and asked if the Letter of Credit
addresses the height specified in the site plan which requires these
~
trees to be six to seven feet in height. He contended that the trees
already planted are not of that height and he had personally recommended
to the Zoning Administrator that the existing trees be replaced with II
ones of the specified height. He also questioned whether the amount
of the document $3,300.00 would cover replacement of these trees.
Mrs. Young had checked and submitted an amount of $1,500.00 which
was doubled on this document. There was also a question on how trees
are measured--from the ball of the tree or from the trunk of the tree.
After discussion of all the questions that arose, the Board was hesi-
tant to accept the Letter of Credit. Mr. Versace rescinded his motion
e2/(f
[
to accept the Letter of Credit and Mr. McCluskey rescinded his second
to that motion.
MR. INCORONATO moved not to accept the Letter of Credit from Mr. MacGeorge
on the basis that the present height of the trees may be inadequate
and that the Zoning Administrator provide the Board with dimensions
from the ground up on each plant.
Seconded by Mr. McCluskey
Motion Unanimously Carried
Mrs. Paino was in favor of this motion with the understanding that
final discussion on this matter be held at their work shop on September
24th, 1985.
Mr. Versace did not feel a Town Board work shop was necessary since
they would be able to discuss this matter at a special meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals on September 24, 1985 at 7 P.M.
L
A request was received from Hank Santis, Precision Contracting for
a refund on building permits and water and sewage hookups on Lots #8
and 9 of the Cedar Creek Estates (Schnabl Court). The total amount
was for $740.00 and he based his request on the fact that the Zoning
Board of Appeals denied the variance he needed in order to build on
the two lots. The Attorney was not familiar with this matter and
could offer no opinion at this time.
Michael Hirkala, member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, was recognized
by the Chair, noted that this denial did not mean he could not build
on the lots. The lots were in the wetland area and he could build
according to the rules and regulations specified in the Zoning Ordinance
on wetlands which would add to the cost of building. Mr. Hirkala
added that the lots were turned back to the original owner by Mr. Santis.
Mr. McCluskey questioned whether the builder had investigated the area
before he applied for the building permits. He felt the matter should
be researched before the Board approved or rejected this request for
a refund.
MR. MCCLUSKEY moved to direct a letter to Mr. Santis notifying him that
his request is turned down at this time pending additional information
from him and the Town Board will check with the Zoning Administrator
and Zoning Board of Appeals for further clarification of this matter.
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
L
Motion Unanimously Carried
:f-?J
~
\
The following letter was received from Attorney James Loeb:
September 11, 1985
The Town Board
Town of Wappinger
Mill Street
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
RE: Our File #27,006
Dear Board Members:
~
I am writing to ynron behalf of taxpayers in the Town of Wappinger
to advise you that they are seriously considering instituting a
taxpayer's action against individual members of the Town Board
pursuant to section 51 of the GeneralMunicipal Law. The purpose
of my letter is to bring this matter to your attention so that
you have an opportunity to rescind the action previously taken
by the Board which I believe to be in violation of specific sections
of New York State statutes. .
I am referring to a resolution adopted by the Town Board on July 1,
1985. That resolution apparently authorized certain work to be done
at the Town sewer plants. The resolution was adopted by a vote of
3 to 2. The minutes reflect the fact that one of the Town Board
members who voted against the resolution expressed concern that some
of the items of work were capital improvements and must be put out
to bid. The resolution itself is unclear as to which items the
Board proposes to put out to bid and which items were to be handled
under the "Operation and Maintenance Budget". Another Board member
expressed concern because there was no way of knowing whether or
not the price offered the Town was the best price because there was
no public bidding.
It is my understanding that the Board was put on notice some time
ago of the concern that capital improvements were going to be
constructed without public bidding. I have seen material which
confirms to me that the Supervisor understands that capital
improvements must go out to public bid. The Supervisor has
stated that since these improvements have been mandated by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the
capital improvements do not have to go out to bid. That is not
in accordance with the General ""}Municipal Law of
the State of New York.
I have seen additional material in which the Town has identified
Ralph Bundell of the Department of Audit and Control as the source
of the opinion that no public bidding is required because capital
improvements have been mandated by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation. I have spoken with Mr. Bundell
and he assures me that in fact he said nothing of the kind. He
confirmed to me that capital improvements of the type authorized
by the R~solution of July 1, 1985 would require public bidding.
He confirmed further that there is no excemption from the public
bidding requirement for capital improvements whether or not those
improvements are mandated by the Department of Environmental
Conservation.
~--'."
,
n
It would appear to me as if the Town of Wappinger has determined
to virtually flaunt the provisions in the statutes of the State
of New York which require public bidding. Fortunately the Town
Board has an opportunity to correct the situation immediately.
All that need be done is to rescind the Resolution of July 1,
1985 and thereafter proceed in accordance with the General
Municipal Law. In the event the Town Board does not act to do
so on or before October 11, 1985 my clients intend to proceed and
seek to redress against the three members of the Town Board who
voted in favor of the Resolution of July 1, 1985 pursuant to
section 51 of the GeneralMunicipal Law entitled "Prosecution of
Officers for Illegal Acts". I have attached a copy of that section
to this letter; I call to the Board's attention that the section
provides for recovery of a judgment against individuals in the
event that the Court determines that there has been an illegal
contract. Based upon the information provided to me and the
I.~i.:':
II
~M
Resolution adopted by the Board on July 1, 1985, the authorization
to proceed with certain capital improvements without public bidding
in viohnon of the General Municipal Law would indeed be an
illegal contract.
I sincerely hope that this Board acts to rescind that portion of
the resolution of July 1, 1985 which authorized any public works
in excess of the statutory amount without public bidding and/or
any purchases in excess of the statutory amount without public
bidding.
l
Very truly yours,
s/ James R. Loeb
Mr. Versace commented that he agreed that these improvements were
mandated by the D.E.C. but he did not indicate that the capital
improvements do not have to go out to bid because of this mandate.
He then referred the correspondence to the Attorney for his opinion.
Mr. Kessler noted that he had received a copy of Mr. Loeb's letter
to the Town Board dated September 11, 1985 and has looked into this
matter. He has spoken to Mr. Bandell (not Bundell) of the State
Department of Audit and Control and in certain respects, he thinks
the problem has arisen because of misinterpretation of what one says
on the phone and what one doesn't say. In looking into the matter with
Audit and Control, he found that back in November of 1982, the former
l
Attorney to the Town of Wappinger, Jon Adams, asked the Audit and
Control for an opinion concerning the contract entered into on or
about January 1, 1983 with Camo Pollution Control and the Town of
Wappinger, as to whether this contract with Camo was a contract for
professional services in connection with supervision, operation and
maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities. Jon Adams asked the
State for an opinion as to whether that contract would require
competitive bidding. Under opinion #82/290, the Department of Audit
and Control issued an opinion that, in their opinion the contract was
for professional services and did not need any competitive bidding.
The question boils down as to whether in a contract where the contract
for professional services does not require any competitive bidding,
l
it requires competitive bidding in the event that anyone of the items
being purchased by the Town is in excess of the sum of $5,000. He
communicated with Camo Pollution Control officers and learned that the
work completed in 1984 only refers to repairs and maintenance with the
exception where new items had to be purchased, they were purchased
directly by the Town, not subject to competitive bidding because the
amounts involved were under $5,000. The work to be completed under
the contract is for a three year period of time, the contract with
\
~13
Camo is a five year contract. He does not find any evidence
whatsoever that any Town Board Member, whether they voted for or
against , committed any illegal act. His conversation with Ralph
Bandell was to the effect that Mr. Loeb told Mr. Bandell that Mr.
Versace stated that because the D.E.C. mandated this work, it was
not subject to competive bidding. Mr. Versace just stated for the
record that he never mare that statement and the minutes of July 1,
1985 indicate that the D.E.C. has granted permission to the Town to
complete the required work in this manner, referring to the three
year date which D.E.C. confirmed was the time period for which the
Town had to complete the work. He does not find any illegality,
there has been no bid that requires any type of competitive bidding
by any material person. He cited some items that have been completed
by Camo, such as flow meter purchased by the Town under $5,000,
flight of wooden steps, chains and sprockets that had to be repaired
at Fleetwood, all ordinary repairs, also new covers on sludge holding
tank. Mr. Kessler stated that he has been advised by Audit and Control
that the test they apply on whether it is operation and management
is whether it is being repaired, and if so, it comes under operation
and maintenance. He has arranged with Mr. Bandell that he will write
to him setting forth the facts that he has just set forth and ask him
to issue an opinion to the Town concerning this matter. He requested
direction from the Board.
MR. INCORONATO moved to authorize the Attorney to the Town to contact
the New York State Department of Audit and Control for an opinion
on the matter set forth by the Attorney.
Seconded by Mrs. Paino
~
Motion Unanimously Carried
Prior to the vote on this motion there were comments from the Board
Members. Mr. McCluskey had a question on what were normal professional
services;hesaware of the opinion from the D.E.C. that Mr. Adams had
obtained, however, the work on the sewer treatment plants were not
normal everyday repairs, they involved extensive renovations. He
recalled discussions the Board had held on floating a bond to pay
the costs involved on some of the projects. He felt they may be in
trouble with the bidding law since the professional services umbrella
may not cover the situation. Mr. Kessler responded that there was no
problem with the bidding law because in the event anyone time exceeds
~
~
-
L
L
L
:271/ .
sum of $5,000, the Town will set it out to competitive bidding. The
work that has been completed up to now does not come under competitive
bidding. It may very well be that in future years, there might be
items that will have to go through the competitive bidding process;
he's not denying that since the schedule submitted runs to 1987.
Mrs. Paino referred to the motion made at the July 1, 1985 which
approved the schedule and also approved the three year project costs
to be paid from the operation and maintenance budget. At her request,
Mr. Kessler read the motion: "Mr. Versace moved to accept the rec-
commendation submitted by Camo Pollution Control relating to comple-
tion of the maintenance and repair of the Town sewer plants within
three years and the cost to be charged to the operation and main-
tenance budget over the same period of time". Mrs. Paino continued
with the point she was trying to explain that Mr.Kessler was referring
to the work completed in 1984 and the motion was dealing with the
three year project for the sewer plants. The subject of Mr. Loeb's
letter is the motion on the three year project for these plants.
She had conversations with people in Audit and Control who indicated
that capital improvement projects in excess of $7,000 for labor and
materials or in excess of $5,000 for materials, must go out to bid.
In the report from Morris and Andros and Camo Pollution Control, the
major uphauling has been referred to as capital improvements and in
each area, Rockingham, Mid-Point and Fleetwood, the amounts of the
projects are w~ll in excess of the $5,000 and $7,000 figures.
The Attorney reiterated that he could find no evidence that the
repair work is not covered properly by operation and maintenance.
In the event there are capital improvements in years to come, there
will be competitive bidding. It has already been decided by Audit
and Control that the Camo Pollution Contract contract is for profes-
sional services and the labor cost comes under this contract.
In view of the recommendation made by the Attorney, Mrs. Paino felt
the resolution from the July 1, 1985 meeting should be rescinded
because it stated that during the course of the next three years
anything done with regard to major overhauling to the sewer treatment
plants will automatically be under the operation and maintenance budget.
He disagreed with this statement and Mrs. Paino requested that he
read the motion again; Mr. Kessler replied that he knew how the
motion read and it would not change his mind by repeating it.
~1S'
Discussion between Mrs. Paino and the Attorney continued regarding
the interpretation of the motion. Mrs. Paino read a portion of
the motion again and mentioned that the three year program pertained
to capital improvements being expended from the operation and
maintenance budget which was the reason she and Mr. McCluskey voted
against the motion. Mr. Kessler differed with this fact pointing
I
out that the words capital improvements were not mentioned in the
motion. For clarification purposes, Mr. Versace asked Mrs. Paino
and Mr. Kessler if they were reading from the July 1, 1985 minutes.
Mrs. Paino replied that she was reading from the minutes of that
meeting which were accepted and approved at the following Town Board
meeting and it was the original document; Mr. Kessler replied that
he had an excerpt from the meeting. This discussion was concluded
by Mr. Versace's request to have the Town Clerk repeat the motion
relating to the Attorney being authorized to seek an opinion from
Audit and Control on the facts stated by the Attorney. Mrs. Paino
requested that the Attorney forward the letter to Audit and Control
within the next week.
The next item on the Agenda was a Memo from the Comptroller relating II
to the omission of $63,582.00 from the 1985 budget for reimbursement
to New York City on the pump station at Chelsea. Mrs. Garrison
explained that there was a question last year during budget work
shops on whether this expenditure could be paid from Federal Revenue
Funds. This figure, she explained, was relocated several times during
the budget process and inadvertently, through human error, was
eliminated altogether from the budget. She has been advised by
the State Department of Audit and Control to take out a bond
anticipation note to cover the debt service for this year and include
the note in the 1986 budget.
Mr. McCluskey couldn't understand how they dropped this amount from
the budget--wouldn't the computor have picked it up. It appears that
_'t'
.<.,.<.....
-jj
now taxpayers will be paying double next year.
Mrs. Paino asked what interest would they be paying on this Note
and commented that they had conversations on this item and Mrs.
Garrison had stated that it was all taken care of. Now it will be
doubled for the 1986 budget plus the interest; she requested the
Comptroller to provide the total amount to the Board Members when
this information was available.
l
l
l
~J~
Mr. Versace commented that this was a human error, it was unfortunate
that it was nearly $64,000, but the debt remains and the Town is
obligated to pay this amount to New York City.
MR. VERSACE moved to authorize the Comptroller to go to bid on a Budget
Anticipation Note in the amount of $63,582.00 to cover the cost
of the 1985 reimbursement to New York City relating to the Chelsea
Pump Station.
Seconded by Mr. McCluskey
Motion Unanimously Carried
A Memo was received from the Dutchess Office for the Aging requesting
that the Town Board appoint another person to serve on the Dial-A-
Ride Advisory Board since Renata Ballard had moved out of the area.
Mrs. Ballard noted that she had informed this department several
months ago that she would be leaving and they have assumed that she
has left. She offered to attend their next meeting to introduce
whomever was appointed by the Board to be their representative.
Mr. Versace asked for a volunteer from the Town Board to serve
as their representative and Mrs. Paino offered her services.
MR. VERSACE moved to appoint Irene Paino as the Town Board's
representative on the Dial-A-Ride Advisory Board.
Seconded by Mr. Incoronato
Motion Unanimously Carried
Committee Reports---
Mrs. Ballard, Recreation---the fencing at the Rockingham recreation
area was discussed earlier in the meeting. The Recreation Commission
is working on permanent fencing for the Spook Hill recreation site.
Mr. Maurer, Chairman of the Commission, is seeking prices on fencing
the pathway from the recreation area back to Nancyaleen Drive and
he will make arrangements to have the tree removed that is blocking
that path.
Town Hall, Mrs. Ballard reported that the Building Inspector had
distributed a memo dated September 12, 1985 relating to the progress
of the building. She and Mr. McCluskey toured the new building with
Mr. Liscum from Hayward and Pakani she suggested that they set
another date for the Board Members to meet at the site for a tour
of the building. She suggested that they meet on a Saturday morning
in the middle of October and all agreed. Mrs. Ballard will notify
them of the date and time when she arranges this with Mr. Liscum.
iJ71
Mrs. Paino, Recreation---some of the items relating to recreation
have been discussed, however she had another item she wished to
pursue which related to a request from the Town Board for the
Recreation Commission to investigate the feasibility of having a
pool in the Town; this required a study on the location and an
approximate cost of this facility. Mr. Stoller was designated by
the Recreation Commission to research this matter and report his
findings to the Commission and the Town Board. Mr. Stoller has had
since January to do this research and Mrs. Paino felt that by this
time he should have information available to submit to the Board.
MRS. PAINO moved to direct a letter to Herbert Stoller requesting
that he forward the information he has acquired on the feasibility
of a pool in the Town, to the Town Board by their next meeting on
October 7, 1985.
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
Motion Unanimously Carried
Mrs. Paino referred to meeting held last Thursday night with the
Chairmen of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board and the
Conservation Advisory Council. The Chairmen were requested to
meet with their respective Boards to discuss and prepare a prior-
tized list of what they felt should be accomplished during the
six month moratorium when and if this is put into effect.
MRS. PAINO moved to forward a letter to the members of the Zoning
Board of Appeals, Planning Board and Conservation Advisory Council
asking that this list be submitted to the Town Board prior to their
vote on the proposed moratorium.
Seconded by Mr. McCluskey
Motion Unanimously Carried
Mr. Versace added that the Chairmen of these Boards were requested
to address the problems and situations they have encountered during
the course of their involvement with their respective Boards.
He had no problem with requesting input from each member of these
Boards, he did not feel they should delay action if this information
was not received by the October meeting when the Town Board intends
to take action on the proposed moratorium. He felt that the input
from the members should be gathered by the respective Chairman and
submitted by him, rather than individual reports.
-
tj
II
I
[
l
l
c17t'
Mrs. Paino noted that a letter was hand delivered by a representative
of the Tri-Municipal Commission to the Town Board during the public
hearing on the Oakwood Sewer Treatment Plant, indicating that the
Commission was reviewing the proposals submitted by Morris and
Andros and were interested in responding to the alternative proposal
which indicates tying into Tri-Municipal.
Mrs. Paino moved to send a letter to the Tri-Municipal Commission
asking that they contact the Supervisor's Office to set up a special
meeting or work shop meeting with the Town Board to discuss the
possibility of the Town tying into Tri-Municipal and approximate
costs involved.
Mr. Versace interrupted further action on this motion to announce
that it was his intent to set an information meeting on the proposed
Wappinger Sewer Improvement #2 on September 26, 1985 at 7:30 P.M.
at the Town Hall and notify the Tri-Municipal Commission and
Mr. Schner of the Pizzagalli Development Company of this meeting.
A discussion followed relating to Mrs. paino.'s preference to hold
a special work shop with Tri-Municipal and then have an informational
meeting veisus Mr. Versace's intent to have one meeting with all
parties involved and open to the public. At the conclusion of the
discussion Mrs. Paino agreed to amend her motion.
MRS. PAINO moved to send a letter to the Tri-Municipal Commission
inviting them to attend the informational meeting on the proposed
Wappinger Sewer Improvement Area #2, on Thursday, September 26, 1985
at 7:30 P.M. at the Town Hall.
Seconded by Mr. Incoronato
Motion Unanimously Carried
The last item Mrs. Paino reported on was in reference to the Fall
Clean-up for the Town. The Highway Department will be conducting
this clean-up on the last two weeks of October on the east side of
Route 9 and the first two weeks of November on the west side of
Route 9.
MRS. PAINO moved to set Fall Clean-up for the last two weeks in
October on the east side of Route 9 and the first two weeks in
November on the west side of Route 9.
Seconded by Mr.McCluskey
Motion Unanimously Carried
. : ~1r
Mr. Versace reminded the Board and those present that there would
be an informational meeting on the proposed building moratorium
at the Ketcham High School Cafeteria on September 18, 1985 at
7:30 P.M.
MR. VERSACE moved to set an informational meeting on September 26,
1985 at 7:30 P.M. relating to Wappinger Sewer Improvement Area #2.
~.,.....
"
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
Motion Unanimously Carried
Mr. Incoronato noted that the "Capolino" name keeps appearing on
the Zoning Enforcement Officer's report, but nothing seems to be
resolved on the pending violation which involves the apparent use
of residential property for commercial uses. The Zoning Administrator
had advised him that this matter was turned over to the court in
April and no action has been taken since then.
MR. INCORONATO moved to send a letter to the Town Justices requesting
the status of the Capolino case and if it hasn't been resolved, when
do they expect to take action on this matter.
Seconded by Mr. McCluskey
Motion Unanimously Carried
~
II
The following resolution was offered by COUNCILMAN INCORONATO who
moved its adoption:
WHEREAS the Southern Dutchess News has been selected as the
Town's official newspaper,
WHEREAS, scores of families in Chelsea Hamlet are presently
receiving free copies of the Beacon version of the Southern
Dutchess News, rather than the Wappinger edition,
WHEREAS this practice has led to scores of town residents in
this hamlet not having access to our legal notices,
I therefore make a motion to have the Town Clerk correspond
with the Southern Dutchess News owners and ask for a substitution
from the present Beacon issue to the Wappinger edition for all
Chelsea homeowners, as soon as possible,
Further, that the town be notified of the Southern Dutchess
News' intentions regarding this request.
Seconded by Councilman McCluskey
Ij./
.
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
Mr. McCluskey reported that he met with Wesley Nolan regarding a
potentially serious flooding problem behind the home of his mother,
Pauline Nolan, on New Hackensack Road across from the Barger Engineer-
ing Firm. He and RonaHEvangelista visited the site a few days after
he was aware of the situation and noted that the problem is caused
by drainage from Wildwood; they also observed there is a sanitary
l
l
l
~~
sewer next to the creek that is starting to disintegrate. He
strongly recommended that the area be cleaned up before heavy
rains cause flooding conditions in Wildwood.
Before going on to resolutions, Mr. Versace wished to make one more
motion regarding a day of enjoyment for our residents which was
finalized by a beautiful display of fireworks.
MR. VERSACE moved to send a letter of thanks to Connie Smith and
her Committee, on behalf of the Town Board, for the outstanding
job they did in organizing the activities for the Town Community
Day.
Seconded by Mr. Incoronato
Motion Unanimously Carried
Resolutions---
A Public Hearing having been held by the Town Board on September 17,
1985 on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 416 (Signs),
the matter was now placed before them for their consideration.
MR. INCORONATO moved to adopt the following Amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance:
BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDAINED by the Town Board of the Town
of Wappinger as follows:
That Section 416 entitled "Signs" be amended to read as
follows:
Section 416.1/Application
1. Application for permit shall be made in writing upon sign
permit forms prescribed by the Town's Zoning Administrator.
2. Applicant shall furnish a detailed drawing or blueprint
showing description of the construction details of the sign and
showing the lettering and other advertising matter on the sign;
sign colors; sign height; type and position of lighting; a location
plan showing the position of all signs in relation to buildings,
and to any street, highway, or sidewalk, including the location of
any sign or signs on any structure.
3. written consent of the owner of the building, structure or
land, or an authorized representative, on which the sign is to
be erected, in the event the applicant is not the owner.
Section 416.2/Conformity Required
No sign or billboard shall be erected, constructed, displayed,
maintained, moved, reconstructed, extended, enlarged or altered
without a permit issued by the Zoning Inspector. Wherever located,
any sign shall conform to the following:
Section 416.3/Relationship to a Permitted Use
All signs must pertain to a use conducted on the same property
on which they are located, otherwise a special use permit must be
obtained.
Section 416.4/Signs in Residence Districts
. ~~1
In residence districts, the following signs are hereby authorized:
416.41
Residence Sign, Size and Location
One (1) identification sign stating the name and address of
resident, property, or permitted accessory use, not exceeding
two (2) square feet in area, may be attached to mailbox or
supporting pole. If free standing, the sign shall be no closer
than five (5) feet from the edge of the paved road or sidewalk,
where it exists.
416.42
Special Sign, Size and Location
-
One (1) "For Sale" or one (1) "To Let" sign not exceeding six
(6) square feet in area and shall be no closer than five (5)
feet from the edge of the road pavement or sidewalk, where
it exists.
Section 4l6.5/Sign Regulations in Residence Districts
416.51
Illumination
No sign shall be illuminated in a residential district except
as granted by Special Use Permit and then only during business
hours.
416.52
Animation
No sign shall be mechanically animated, such as, moving,
rotating or revolving.
Section 4l6.6/Signs in Non-Residence Districts
(NB, GB, se, HB, OR, AI, PI)
All signs in non-residence districts are considered an
integral part of a site plan and are subject to the site plan
review process. All signs must pertain to a use conducted on
the same property on which they are located.
-
416.61
Signs Affixed to Structures
Not more than one (1) sign, per retail or business outlet,
affixed and parallel to the outer wall of the structure, facing
upon either a principal street or upon the parking lot pertinent
to such structure, provided that:
416.611 No sign shall project above the roof or beyond the
side walls of the structure pertinent to the permitted use.
416.612 No sign shall face an abutting residential zoning
district.
416.613 The length of such sign shall not exceed eighty
percent (80%) of the linear feet of the building frontage
occupied by the retail or business outlet.
416.614 The aggregate area of such sign shall not exceed
one (1) square foot for each linear foot of retail or business
outlet facing such street or parking lot, or one hundred (100)
square feet, whichever is less.
I
416.615 The face of such sign shall not exceed the following
width dimension: two (2) feet for up to 20 linear feet of building
frontage; three (3) feet for anything greater than 20 linear feet
of building frontage, whether the sign is oriented either vertically
or horizontally, The width dimension of such sign is defined by
standard orthographic projection (i.e. Height/thickness, Width,
Length) .
416.62 Permanently Mounted Free Standing Signs
Not more than one (1) free standing sign, mounted in such
manner as to constitute a permanent fixed installation, no taller
than ten (10) feet, composed of no more than two (2) back-to-back
faces, along each street on which the lot abuts, shall be allowed
L
L
L
~~~
provided that the aggregate area of each such sign shall not
exceed one (1) square foot for each linear foot of building
facing the street or twenty-five (25) square feet, whichever
is smaller. A corner lot shall be allowed one (1) free standing
sign of such design or construction so as to be viewed from more
than one direction. A free standing sign shall not be located
closer than twenty-five (25) feet from any front, side or rear
lot line.
416.63
Window Signs
Signs affixed to, or placed so as to be visible through, a
glass surface shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total
glass area facing a street, or parking area serving the retail
or business outlet.
416.64
Canopy Signs
One (1) hanging canopy sign shall be permitted per retail or
business outlet. The sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet
in area and shall be placed under the canopy, contiguous to the
retail or business outlet to identify the entrance. The sign
shall be hung perpendicular to the front of the building and
shall not extend beyond the outer edge of the canopy.
416.65
Temporary Signs
Temporary signs, portable or fixed, are not allowed except
to identify an area of construction or property for sale or rent.
Such signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area, with not
more than one (1) for each street frontage of the lot. Such signs
shall not exceed a duration of six (6) months and shall not be
located closer than twenty-five (25) feet from any front, side or
rear lot line.
416.66
Conformity
Any signs which will have become non-conforming because of
the 1985 sign ordinance amendment will have two (2) years from
the date of adoption of this amendment in which to conform,
except for window signs which must immediately conform.
416.67
Illumination
One (1) permitted sign may be illuminated, during business
hours only, provided that such illumination shall not be twinkling,
flashing, intermittent or of changing degrees of intensity, except
for time/temperature signs, and provided that the source of such
illumination shall not be visible beyond the boundaries of the
lot on which it is located.
416.68
Animation
No sign shall be mechanically animated, such as moving,
rotating or revolving.
416.69
Visibility
No sign shall be located so as to obstruct any signs displayed
by public authority, nor shall any sign be placed in such a way
as to obstruct proper sight distance or otherwise interfere with
pedestrian or traffic flow.
416.70
Location
No sign shall be located in any roadway, parking area or
right-of-way.
~~3
416.71
Contents And/Or Design
The contents of any sign and/or height of its lettering shall
be designed such that it can be easily read by the intended
audience, (i.e. motorists traveling at highway speeds.) The
design of the sign whall be such as to complement the site
upon which it is to be located.
Seconded by: Councilwoman Ballard
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
-
A SEQR Review has been prepared by Morris and Andros, Engineering
Consultants for the Town of Wappinger, and recommended that the
Town Board, as lead agency, make a negative declaration for the
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 416 (Signs), in
accordance with SEQR compliance.
MR. INCORONATO moved to accept the recommendations of the Engineer
to the Town relating to a negative declaration for the Amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 416 (Signs), in accordance with
SEQR compliance.
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
Motion Unanimously Carried
last work shop session, Commissioner Roger Akeley was present, and
I
Mr. McCluskey had one more item to bring before the Board; at the
among other items discussed with the Town Board, he also informed
them that they could request the State to plant trees in the median
of the new Route 9 if this was their preference. The deadline for
this request would be coming up shortly so they would have to act
on this matter as soon as possible, plus the fact that they must
agree to take care of these trees. Commissioner Akeley suggested
that the Town indicate in their request that they would like these
plantings, similar to the White Plains project.
MR. MCCLUSKEY moved to send a letter to the New York State Department
of Transportation requesting that the median of the new Route 9
be planted with trees, similar to the White Plains Project.
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
-
Motion Unanimously Carried
Item 7b was removed from the Agenda pending the necessary resolution
from the Attorney relating to the prosecution of trespassers at
recreation areas.
The following resolution was offered by COUNCILWOMAN BALLARD who
moved its adoption:
~q
WHEREAS, there were no funds budgeted for Town Board
Contractual Expense, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board authorized expenditures for a Court
Reporter at two (2) Public Hearings held by the Town,
BE IT RESOLVED, that $300.00 be and is hereby transferred
from Contingency A1990.4 to the Town Board Contractual Expense
AIOIO.4.
l
Seconded by: Councilwoman Paino
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
The following resolution was offered by COUNCILMAN INCORONATO
who moved its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Town of Wappinger experienced difficulty in having
their computer system become operable to produce monthly reports,
and had to therefore continue to utilize an, outside computer
service, which resulted in an insuffiency in that line item,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the amount of $661.00 be and is hereby
transferred from Contingency A Fund 1990.4 to Independent Audit
and Accounting A1320.4.
Seconded by: Councilwoman Ballard
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
The following resolution was offered by COUNCILWOMAN BALLARD who
L
moved its adoption:
WHEREAS, the insurance for the Town of Wappinger for the
year 1985 was more than anticipated in the budget, and
WHEREAS, monies had been set aside in contingency against
that possibility,
BE IT RESOLVED, that $1,076.88 be and is hereby transferred
from Contingency A1990.4 to Unallocated Insurance A1910.4.
Seconded by: Supervisor Versace
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
The following resolution was offered by COUNCILMAN MCCLUSKEY
who moved its adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED, the sum of $14,299.52 be and is hereby
transferred to General Fund A for reimbursement of Administration
costs for various Water and Sewer Districts for an 8 month period
of 1985. Such sums shall and will be transferred:
L FROM
ACCOUNT SW 8310.1 TOTAL 6,977.84
Oakwood Water 223.28
Fleetwood Water 374.00
Tall Trees Water 240.64
C~ 5,666.64
Ardmore Water 113.28
Watch Hill Water 360.00
and
ACCOUNT SS 8110.1 TOTAL 6,140.64
Mid Point Park Sewer 440.00
;fJ5
Fleetwood Sewer
Rockingham Sewer
Wildwood Sewer
WSI #1
374.00
2,666.64
660.00
2,000.00
To A Fund A13l5.l
FROM
ACCOUNT SW 8310.4
Total
677.84
Oakwood Water
Fleetwood Water
Tall Trees
CWW
Ardmore
Watch Hill Water
and
20.00
33.28
33.28
506.64
10.00
74.64
ACCOUNT SS 8110.4
Total
503.20
Mid Point Park Sewer
Fleetwood Sewer
Rockingham Sewer
Wildwood Sewer
WSI #1
40.00
33.28
216.64
40.00
173.28
TO A FUND A1670.4
Seconded by: Councilwoman Paino
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
The following resolution was offered by COUNCILWOMAN PAINO who
moved its adoption:
WHEREAS, the town wishes to install a floodlight on the Town
property located on All Angels Hill and Myers Corners Road known
as Schlathaus Park, and
WHEREAS, the Schlathaus Memorial Fund has sufficient funds
to cover the expense,
BE IT RESOLVED that the sum of $1,225.00 be and is hereby
appropriated for such purposes.
Seconded by: Councilman McCluskey
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
A letter was received from Ronald Evangelista regarding problems
that required attention on Daniel Sabia Drive in the Blue Ridge
Subdivision, before the Town Board could consider accepting this
road.
MR. VERSACE moved to receive this correspondence and place it on
file.for future reference.
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
Motion Unanimously Carried,
~
d
II
~..../
II
l
L
u
~%
At a previous meeting Mr. McCluskey had requested that a letter be
sent to the developer of this subdivision asking that he change the
name from Daniel Sabia Drive to either Daniel Drive or Sabia Drive.
The Attorney replied, when questioned, that it was legal for the
Town to change the name of the road; they did not have to accept
the name given by the developer. It was agreed that Sabia Drive
would be more relevant since the property was owned by the Sabia
family and the name was well known.
MR. MCCLUSKEY moved to change the name of the road from Daniel
Sabia Drive to Sabia Drive.
Seconded by Mr. Incoronato
Motion Unanimously Carried
There was no other business to come before the Board.
MR. INCORONATO moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. McCluskey
and unanimously carried.
The Meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Elaine H. Snowden
Town Clerk
Reg. Bimonthly Mtg.
9/17/85