Loading...
1968-03-25 SPMWAIVER OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK The undersigned, being all of the members of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, do hereby waive notice of the time and place of the holding of a Special Meeting of said Town Board, and do hereby agree and consent that the same be held on the 25th day of March, 1968, at10:30 o'clock in the afternoon of that day at the P.M. Town Hall%of the Town of Wappinger, Mill Street, in the Village of Wappingers Falls, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, for the transaction of all business which may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment thereof. Due and timely notice hereby admitted. ,(642 Councilman COG -14, Co ilman LczZ of the above mentionedlmeeting is A Special Meeting of the Town Board of on Monday eveningAat 10:30 P.M. at the Wappingers Falls, New York. naloi),QA\ �yls.�1.r+14e. Town Clem Town of Wappinger the Town of Wappinger was held Town Hall, Mill Street, 52 The Supervisor called the meeting to order at 10:30 P.M. Present: Louis Diehl, Supervisor Louis Clausen, Councilman G. Donald Finnan, Councilman James Mills, Jr., Councilman Others Present: Allan Rappleyea, Attorney to the Town Joseph Ludowig, Building Inspector Absent: Leonce Heady, Councilman The following resolution was offered by MR. MILLS : RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE_ TOWN OF WAPPINGER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK, ANNULLING AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL FOR THE FORMATION OF A GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New Yotk, executed an ORDER calling for a public hearing pursuant to Section 309A of the Town Law concerning the establish- ment of a Garbtage and Refuse Disposal District for the Town of Wappinger, excluding therefrom, however, all lands lying within the corporate land of the Village of Wappingers Falls, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that said Order is hereby annulled and cancelled and the same should be of no further effect. Seconded by Mr. Clausen Louis Diehl, Supervisor Aye Louis Clausen, Councilman Aye G. Donald Finnan, Councilman Aye Leonce Heady, Councilman James Mills, Jr, Councilman Aye Resolution duly adopted. Mr. Ludewig requested direction from the Board requesting the issuance of C.O's in the Rockingham Farms Sewer District. At a previous date the Board had approved the issuance of 10 C.O's. at a fee of $240. per hook-up for the sewer district. Mr1 Ludewig advised the Board that he had issued 10 building permits and the developers were nearing the completion of these 10 houses and would be looking for the C.O's. Mr. Ludewig asked the opinion of the Board 6 as to how to proceed, whether they should go along and extend ! more C.O's. to these developers at the existing fee of $240 per hookup. The Board discussed the various alternatives at length. MR. MILLS moved to charge $500. per house for future hookups in the Rockingham Farms Sewer District, seconded by MR. DIEHL. Mr. Diehl ---Aye, Mr. Clausen ---Aye, Mr. Finnan ---Aye, Mr. Mills ---Aye. Mr. Ludewig asked the Board if there was a possibility of writing to the Board of Health to establish what the present status of the Rockingham Farms Sewer District was in relation to continuing issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy in the four develop- ments served by the district, namely: Rockingham Farms, Edgehill Manor Section 111, Dutchess Heights, Inc. and Ye Olde Apple Orchard, Inc. He also would like advise from them if there were any factors that should be considered in the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy for the developments served by Rockingham Farms water system or the Hilltop Water Works Corp. The Clerk was directed to write to the Board of Health in regard to Mr. Ludewig's request. MR. CLAUSEN moved to authorize and empower the Supervisor to spend up to $125 for the survey of a right of way into the Oakwood Knolls Sewer Plant, seconded by MR. MILLS. Motion Unanimously Carried Mr. Finnan moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mr. Mills. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. 00:3-tmA Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board, Town of Wappinger, in the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, N.Y. on Monday evening, March 25, 1968, on the Proposed Rezoning of the New Route 9. Supervisor Diehl opened the Hearing at 8:04 P.M. Present: Louis Diehl, Supervisor Louis Clausen, Councilman G. Donald Finnan, Councilman Leonce Heady, Councilman James Mills, Jr., Councilman Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk Others Present : Joseph Ludewig, Building Inspector Rudolph Lapar, Engineer to the Town Allan Rappleyea, Attorney to the Town The following Notice of Public Hearing was read: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, in the Village of Wappingers Falls, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, on the 25th day of March, 1968, at 8:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that day on proposals to amend Sections of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Wappinger, the proposed amend- ments hereto and made a part hereof, and for the purpose of considering the adoption of an amended zoning map of the Town of Wappinger, which map is annexed hereto and made a part hereof. All parties in interest will be heard by the Town Board at the public hearing to be held as aforesaid. f Dated: February 21, 1968 Elaine 1H. Snowden Town Clerk AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, DATED January 29th, 1963 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, DATED January 29th, 1963 These amendments will be annexed hereto and made a part hereof. The Clerk offered for the record the Affidavits of Posting and Publication, duly sworn to and notarized. Recommendations of the Town and County Planning Board had been received. The County Planning Board recommended against this proposal. Mr. Diehl asked for those who were in favor of the rezoning to speak first. There' were no speakers. He then asked for those who were against it to speak. Russell E. Aldribh, Attorney, termed it the "most dramatic zoning change in the history of the Town of Wappinger." It went, he thought, far beyond the scope of its initial undertaking, turning out to be a "windshield zoning" done by a professional planner who rode down Rt. 9. In his opinion, the proposed zoning was fine for Westchester County or Long Island, but not for the "little guys" who owned the parcels, 70% of which are now non -conforming. He cited a few examples of the parcels that were non -conforming, some which were separated and therefore, useless. It is disastrous to the Town of Wappinger, he commented, but a bonanza to the Town of Fishkill. He felt they had created a monster, requiring people r to accumulateparcels of land they do not own in order to acquire, under one ownrship, sufficient property tb conform with their (the Planning Board) arbitrary rules. The Zoning Board of Appeals would be burdened with endless work, because of the owners who required variances. He had asked the previous Town Board and he was now asking the present one what is the impact upon the tax structure of the Town. If the tax is not borne by those on Rt. 9 it would become the burden of the home owners. Mr. Aldrich concluded his statements by urging the Board to give the matter serious thought before acting, and then introduced Mr. Coombs, his associate. Mr. James Coombs, Attorney, presented a report to the Board that he had compiled by procuring tax maps from the Assessors Dept. He outlined the borders of\the areas affected by the zoning change by using the lot areas, lines and sizes from the maps. He doubted that this information, although available, was utilized by the Planning Board or the Planning Consultants. He found 72 lots that were to be rezoned` did not meet, he felt, the area requirements. Explaining further he pointed out that 3 new districts had been created - HB -1, 1 acre zone, HB -2, 2 acre zone, SC, 30 acre zone. 87 In going over the maps there were 72 lots in all that did not conform, - under 1 acre in that district, under 2 acres in that district and in the SC district there was not one lot that met the requirements. He cited other parcels that did not meet width or depth requirements; he blamed this on a combination of not studying the diagrams available and poor draftmanship. In between the Public Hearings held by the Planning Board, one in December and one last week, the Board had stated they would extend the areas. This was not done to any practical purpose; there was one parcel south of the village line used for heavy industrial purpose, bounded on the east by Planned Industry district which was included in HB -2 district where it is non -conforming. It doesn't seem to make sense, it doesn't seem to be good planning, he stated emphatically. The parcel was there bounded on Industrial District but not included in it. It was arbitrarily made non -conforming. He concluded, stating that he could get very specific if requested; a great deal of time may have been _spent by well-meaning people but it didn't seem to him that the thought, commensurate with the time, was put in to this proposal. He repeated Mr. Aldrich's request and urged the Town Board to give the matter serious thought before action. Mr. Joseph Worona, Attorney, was the next speaker against the rezoning. He did not want to be presumptious and repeat any of the remarks the previous two speakers had made but, in his opinion, the constitutionality of this ordinance was certainly in question. A great deal of time and effort had been put into the existing Zoning Ordinance which was adopted in 1963 and he felt that just because Route 9 had been rebuilt it should not create a need in part to almost a complete new Zoning Ordinance as far as the commercial area of the Town is concerned. What might be well intentioned from the academic standpoint of the planners might not be practical and to the best interests of the owners of land and the residents of the Town. The SC (shopping center) area was a good example -_a 30 acre zone individually owned by 3 owners . These owners would have to arrange a package deal and pool their property to arrive at this 30 acre zone, but adjacent to this parcel was a 65 acre parcel with one ownership which would be more practical to use for a shopping center but was not so zoned. He feared the Town would be involved in endless litigation (although he would not object since it created business for him) in years to come. And more important, the owners, who could not afford it, should not be subject to such hardship at this time when we have full knowledge of all the facts. Ian McDonald, Attorney read a list of the properties that do not conform to this ordinance. Mr. Clausen interrupted to ask Mr. McDonald to turn this list over to the Clerk to be put on record. Mr-. Coombs explained the symbols used on the list designating in what way they were non -conforming. Mr. Diehl requested that he write the explanations on the list before it was reproduced. It was then turned over to the Clerk and made an official part of the minutes. Mr. Samuel Slee, referring to Section 439.036, objected to the 1,000 ft restrictions regarding gas stations. Gas companies, he explained, converge on the best corners of the best roads in a -town (it being Rt. 9, in this town); they welcomed competition, and preferred other gas companies on adjacent corners; they paid -the highest tax rate of all commercial businesses and would-be a wel- come addition to the town. On this basis he claimed the restriction was unrealistic and should not be adopted. Harold Bonnerwith, Myers Corners Rd. questioned how his property could be non -conforming, as read off the list previously submitted. The parcel consisted of 62 acres and had been used commercially for 30 years. It was now to be divided up in a way that would make it unable to sell. There was some discussion between the Planning Board members and Mr. Bonnerwith on his interpretation of his non- conforming parcel. Mr. Neil nick, Beechwood Circle submitted a petition from the residents of Beechwood Circle and MacFarlane Road, protesting the 59 proposed rezoning of RD -20 properties located on the east side of Rt. 9 between Hopewell Rd. and MacFarlane Rd. They felt that the property zoned for HB -1 should not extend further east than the property presently zoned for GB. Dr. Daniel Hannigan spoke on the need for more small industry along Rt. 9. Because of transfers he felt the area was headed for a decline and unless newcomers were encouraged by industry in the area they would not settle here. Louis Eck requested that the following letter from the Wappingers Falls Chamber of Commerce be read into the record: March 18, 1968 Town Planning Board Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, N.Y. Gentlemen: The members of the Chamber of Commerce of Wappingers Falls held a meeting on March 13, 1968. The purpose was to study and make recommendations concerning the proposed ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the Town of Wappinger, dated January 29, 1963. It is the Chamber's contention that local conditions should govern zoning districts and not fantasy. Good zoning should have as its base a comprehensive study of the communities' needs. Land should be used for its appropriate useage since if improperly zoned, the result would be vacant and undeveloped land, which in turn would create a hardship upon the property owners and a liability to the township since it would produce little or no revenue to the municipality in which it lies. Consideration must be given to the highest and best use of the properties along the highway, taking into account the differences in grade of the parcels in relationship to the new highway. The underlying principal of good zoning is the protection and the health and safety of the people. A study of the proposed ordinance violates this, i.e. the westerly side of new Route 9 from Hopewell Road south to the Central Hudson overhead lines is zoned R-20, one family residen- tial. Directly south to the intersection of Osborne Hill Road and the new Route 9 on both sides of the new highway is zoned Rd -20 or optional dwelling Residential. To zone both sides of the highway for residential useage is nothing short of inviting the.undertaker. The area to the south and west of the inter- section of the Old Route 9 and the new bordering the Town of Fishkiil is_zoned R-40. This is excellent zoning if the planners have in mind boat houses, since most of the land is under water. This area possibly can be used as alland-fill site, a consery a - tion site, or if properly drained, could be an industrial site. We recommend that the area be divided into orderly districts such as neighborhood or local business district, highway service distr- ict, designed shopping center district, auto court business distri- ict, office building district, retail business district, general commercial district and industrial business district. We further propose that the first 500' on both sides of the new Route 9 between the Village of Wappingers Falls and the Town of Fishkill be used for the proposed districts. These districts would also permit all uses as regulated in all residential districts. In conclusion, the purpose of a -new highway improvement is to, keep traffic moving at a respectable speed, and to zone highway frontage for residential useage would not only defeat the pur- pose of the improvement but would also make it necessary for signal lights at every road leading into the highway. As. members of the Chamber, it is incumbent upon us to encourage the orderly growth of business in the Town of Wappinger, not only as a means of providing employment in the area, but to lighten the tax load that has already reached the breaking point. Sincerely, s/ Vincent Brancato Wappingers Falls Chamber of Commerce Committee: Vincent Brancato, Chairman Arthur Walker Norman Nussbickle William Pritchard Malcolm Cornell - Dr. Heisler asked to have the letter read from the Dutchess County Planning Board. RECOMMENDATION WITH FULL STATEMENT OF REASONS ZONING REFERRAL 68-17 - TOWN OF WAPPINGER Re: Proposed Rezoning of Lands Along New Route 9 Pursuant to General Municipal Law, Sections 239-1 and 239-m, the Town Board for the Town of Wappinger referred to the Dutchess County Planning Department a proposal to rezone lands adjacent to Route 9 and lying within 500 feet of the Village of Wappingers Falls and Town of Fishkill boundaries. The law requires the County Planning Department review and bring to the attention df the agency having jurisdiction pertinent inter -community and county -wide considerations involved in zoning actions lying within 500 feet of a state highway and within 500 feet of muni- cepal boundaries. Accordingly, the Department "shall report its recommendations thereon" and shall provide "a full statement of the reasons for such recommendations". ANALYSIS The Zoning Ordinance - Town of Wappinger, New York is proposed to be amended so as to: establish a pattern of residential and exclusive highway business zoning for lands along the'new 4.5 million dollar Route 9 highway facility, as shown in the accompany- ing map designated Exhibit A. Three new -business districts are proposed: an HB -1 Highway Business District for retail shopping, service establishments, offices, motor vehicle facilities, manu- facturing and entertainment; an HB -2 Highway Business,District which 6i allows all the uses permitted in HB -1 plus wholesale and storage businesses, transportation terminals, clothes cleaning establish- ments, transmission structures; and an SC Shopping Center District. The HB -2 District allows gasoline service stations, as in HB -1, but as a matter of right; e.g., the establishment of such a use only requires site plan approval with the community having no control over number and location. Also, an RD -20 Optional Dwell- ing Residential zone is proposed to be established. The proposed rezoning is a modification of December 22, 1967 pro- posal reviewed by the Dutchess County Planning Department and reported on last February 14, 1968; however, it is significantly less restrictive than the earlier proposal because: (1) it seeks to further expand the extent of commercial zoning along new Rt.9; (2) it would permit all types of business development, whether or not highway oriented, along Route 9 and remove special permit control over establishment of gas stations in HB -2 Districts. Approval of the amendment would, in effect, be endorsement of a plan for strip zoning 90% of the length of highway between the Town of Fishkill line and Wappingers Falls. Almost 40% of the highway would be zoned for business on both sides of the road: 50% would allow commercial development on one side; while only 10/ would be for a land use (residential) that would create minimum impact on the public highway facility. The Town of Wappinger Planning Board has worked for some time with a planning consultant for the formulation of a zoning proposal that would protect the function of Route 9 while enhancing the character of the community. The Board's original plan was to: (1) direct business uses into a limited number of zones on one side of the state highway with access from the old Route 9; (2) limit the development of these zones to suitable business uses; and (3) establish mechanisms for controlling access to and from the new state highway. The plan sought to allow business development while avoiding the pitfalls of strip zoning which have beleaguered towns already having such a roadside zoning pattern. The County Planning Department reviewed the Town proposal last Fall and endorsed the original concept as being in harmony with county planning goals and objectives. Subsequent public hearings at the local level have resulted in modification of the original Town Highway Planning proposals; e.g., extension of the business districts and liberalization of the uses permitted. Public hearings normally result in such changes, and these were found acceptable after consideration of the practical aspects and ability to achieve desired goals. However, the County's report of February 14, 1968 indicated further modification resulting in a less restrictive proposition might not be found acceptable. Review of the subject proposal within the framework of General Municipal Law indicates subject proposal is not sufficiently restrictive to protect inter -comm- unity and county -wide interests and warrant the same endorsement offered previously. CONCLUSIONS The Town of Wappinger proposal dated February 19, 1968 for re- zoning lands along Route 9 as specified above would adversely affect inter -community and county -wide development because of the great extent of frontage and acreage proposed for commercial use coupled with the accompanying open nature of the restrictions on permitted uses. Experience has proven that extensive ribbon business zoning that is open to all types of business uses ad- versely affects inter -community and county -wide traffic movement, highway safety and esthetic character. 6:2 Continual modification of the Planning Board's original concept so as to satisfy requests and/or objections offered at public hearing results in over zoning for business uses and inherent conflicts with planning goals and objectives. A point is reached which suggests a review of the basic goals and objective with modifications, if necessary, which support these policies rather than those that simply meet criticism at the expense of the pub- lic interest. RECOMMENDATION The Dutchess County Planning Department rec¢.,.ommends the 'down Board of Wappinger disapprove the Route 9 rezoning proposal dated February 19, 1968. The DutchessCounty Planning Department recommends the Town Board institute a more restrictive zoning pattern more in line with the Town of Wappinger Planning Bords' original concept. The Dutchess County Planning Department stands ready to lend assistance in this matter, upon request of Town officials. The Dutchess County Planning Department does not presume to base its recommendation upon the legality or illegality of the facts or procedure enumerated in this zoning action. Dated: March 25, 1968 s/ Henry Heissenbuttel, Commissioner Dutchess Cbunty Planning Department Mr. Eck disagreed with the opinion of Dutchess County Planning Board and thought it should be disregarded. Mrs. Stella Dominicus, owner of Dominic's Pizzeria on Rt. 9 questioned who appointed the Planning Board. The State took her building when constructing the new Rt. 9 and she intended to put up another building regardless of the zoning of the Planning Board. Ron Pearson, Beechwood Circle felt that strip zoning technique was a rational approach to zoning, but the proposed zoning was a bit on the academic side. Productivity should be put back into the road; there were unnecessary extensions of HB -1 property, be- yond what is normally required for highuse. Mr. Diehl asked for comments from the Board and as there were none, he declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:35 P.M. Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk A RESOLUTION SCIHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND REFERRING THE SAME ,TO VARIOUS AGENCIES' Proposed by 1ti�r `\N'Al , Seconded by' \NNt- WHEREAS there has been forwarded to the Town Board a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Wappinger, whereby certain definitions contained in the zoning code have been amended and certain districts have been added to the zoning code, NOW,'THEREFORE, be it resolved that a public hearing on the said proposed zoning ordinance be held at the Town Hall of the Town of Wappinger, at 8:00 P.M. on the :);S day of `\1 rx rrin , 1968, and be it further resolved that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of the zoning ordinance amendment to the Town Clerk of the Town of Poughkeepsie, the Town of Fishkill,"the.Village Clerk of the Village of Wappingers Falls, and the Dutchess County Planning Board, and to the Clerk of the Board of County Representatives of the County of Dutchess; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a public notice of said t7. -Sb N£w% public hearing in the prior to said public hearing.`' t M:; Vote: Supervisor Diehl Councilman Clausen Councilman Finnan Councilman Heady 'Councilman Mills atleast ten days Et TOWN BOARD: TOWN OF WAPPINGER DUTCHESS COUNTY: NEW YORK IN THE MATTER OF AFFIDAVIT OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND REFERRING POSTING THE SAME TO VARIOUS AGENCIES 'STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY -OF DUTCHESS) ss: ELAINE H. SNOWDEN, being duly sworn, deposes and Says: That she is the duly elected, qualified and acting Town Clerk of the Town of Wappinger, County of Dutchess and State of New York. That on Feb. 29, 1968, your deponent posted a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment on the signboard maintained by your deponent in her office•in the Town Hall of the Town of Wappinger, Mill Street, in the Village of Wappingers Falls, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York. That such signboard is maintained by your deponent in compliance with the provisions of Article 3, Section 30, Subdivision 6 of the Town Law of the State of New York. _L LL • Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk Sworn to before me this.Z'Day of Apee►/ 1968. >17)//'" NotaR3Egia4higTROsS NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK RESIDING IN DUTCHESS COUNTY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 30,10.18