Vilardi Subd. PAGGI,MARTIN&DEL BENE LLP
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors
56 Main Street
Poughkeepsie,New York 12601
845-471-7898
845-471-0905(FAX)
April 21, 2006
RECEIVED
Planning Board Chairman APR l ����
Town of Wappinger
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 TOWN CLERK
Attention: Phil DiNonno
Reference: Vilardi Project
Dear Phil:
received a call from Scott Olson, Attorney for Verizon for the job at Dr. Vilardi's. He
asked me the status of this project.
I told him that George Kolb and I had made a field inspection of the site on April 18th,
2006, 1 informed Dr. Vilardi at that point in time that:
• Thesite monitor (professional that will be assisting Dr. Vilardi and drafting the
monitoring reports) will need to make a site inspection and advise Dr. Vilardi and the
Town in writing of the deficiencies to the approved Site Pian, Stormwater Pollution
Plan, and Wetland Permit.
• At that point, Dr. Vilardi's contractor will complete the work necessary to bring these
deficiencies up to and in compliance with the appropriate documents.
The Site Monitor will make an inspection and insure that each item has been brought
up to specifications.
• The Site Monitor will draft a letter to Dr. Vilardi and the Town stating the above.
• The "Stop Work" order will be lifted and the Contractor will be able to continue doing
work.
These were the items given to Dr. Vilardi at the site inspection and this is what Scott
Olsen was advised of in our telephone conversation.
If you have any questions on the above; please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Very, ruly yours,
oseph . Paggi, Jr., P, .
JEP:Iaw
cc: Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
George Kolb
Hon. Joseph Ruggiero
Town Board: File
Marco Caviglia, Esq.
Scott Olson, Esq.
Joseph E.Paggi,Jr.,P.E. Ernst Martin,Jr_,PE.,L.S_ Charles R.Del Bene,Jr.,P.E.
I
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS
10B Airline Drive
Albany, New York 12235
Division of Agricultural Protection
and Development Services
518-457-7076
Fax 598.457-2716
September 13, 2004
Dr. Mario Vilardi
887 Main Street
Fishkill, NY 12824
Dear Mr. Vilardi:
From information received, it appears that you intend to construct a training track and
associated stables for the boarding, training and raising of thoroughbred horses. In addition,
you have indicated that the land in question is located within Dutchess County Agricultural
District No. 22, a county adopted, State certified, agricultural district.
The Department has consistently viewed the raising, breeding, boarding and sale of
horses as a "farm operation." Riding and training activities which are directly related to and
incidental to the boarding and raising of horses are also considered by the Department to be
part of the "production, preparation and marketing" of such livestock. On October 31, 2001 the
Governor signed into law a bill that added "commercial horse boarding operations" to the
definition of farm operation. Under AML §301, subd. 11, "farm operation" now means "...the
land and on-farm buildings, equipment, manure processing and handling facilities, and practices
which contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock
products as a commercial enterprise, including a `commercial horse boarding operation' as
defined in subdivision thirteen of this section." AML §301, subd. 13 defines the term
commercial horse boarding operation" as "...an agricultural enterprise, consisting of at least ten
acres and boarding at least ten horses, regardless of ownership, that receives ten thousand
dollars or more in gross receipts annually from fees generated either through the boarding of
horses or through the production for sale of crops, livestock, and livestock products, or through
both such boarding and such production..." In addition, start-up agricultural activities are
considered a farm operation" as previously defined. In prior cases, the Department has
generally stated that a start-up farm should be able to produce $10,000 in gross receipts
annually within a five year period.
You stated that the Town of Wappinger has indicated that your proposed activity is
commercial and not agricultural. In addition, the Town has stated that you must submit to full
site plan review. As previously indicated, the Department would consider the activity proposed
to be an agricultural activity and not commercial in the sense of zoning.
Dr. Mario Vilardi (cant.)
Page 2
In general, the construction of on-farm buildings and the use of land for agricultural
purposes should not be subject to site plan review, special use permits or non-conforming use
requirements when conducted in a county adopted, State certified agricultural district. The
purpose of an agricultural district is to encourage the development and improvement of
agricultural land and the use of agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural
products as recognized by the New York State Constitution, Article XIV, Section 4. Therefore,
generally, agricultural uses and the construction of on-farm buildings as part of a farm operation
should be allowed uses when the farm operation is located within an agricultural district.
The application of site plan and special permit requirements to farm operations can have
significant adverse impacts on such operations. Site plan and special permit review, depending
upon the specific requirements in a local law, can be expensive due to the need to retain
professional assistance to certify plans or simply to prepare the type of detailed plans required
by the law. The lengthy approval process in some local laws can be burdensome, especially
considering a farm's need to undertake management and production practices in a timely and
efficient manner. Site plan and special permit fees can be especially costly for start-up farm
operations.
Generally, farmers should exhaust their local administrative remedies and seek, for
example, permits, exemptions available under local law or area variances before the
Department reviews the administration of a local law. However, an administrative
requirement/process may, itself, be unreasonably restrictive. The Department evaluates the
reasonableness of the specific requirement/process, as well as the substantive requirements
imposed on the farm operation. The Department has found local laws which regulate the health
and safety aspects of the construction of farm buildings through provisions to meet local building
codes or the State Building Code (unless exempt from the State Building Code) and Health
Department requirements not to be unreasonably restrictive. Requirements for local building
permits and certificates of occupancy to ensure that health and safety requirements are met are
also generally not unreasonably restrictive.
I have attached several guidance documents that may be useful. The "Zoning" guideline
contains an abbreviated site plan review procedure that the Department has found, under the
AML, not to be unreasonably restrictive. In addition, the guidance document on "commercial
horse boarding operations" is also attached.
If you would like to request a review of the Town of Wappingers local law or the
application of the same to your proposed start-up farm operation, please complete the attached
form and send the form, along with a copy of the Town Code, to my office. if you need any
further information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Ro a orders, Ph.D.
Chief, Agricultural Protection Unit
a response to such inquiries. Similarly, a farmer or other
Local Laws and affected party in a district may seek the Department's
opinion on a proposed or existing law or ordinance
Agricultural Districts: without filing a complaint.
Farmers
How Do They Relate? A request for review must be provided in writing and
include at least the following information:
Counties, towns and villages in New York State •the location of the farm operation and identification
have broad powers to enact laws to govern their own of the agricultural district in which it is situated;
affairs. However, State laws impose certain restrictions +a description of the affected farm operation (e.g.
on local government authority. One such restriction is size of farm,type of enterprise,years in operation);
found in Section 305-a of the Agriculture and Markets •a description of the specific farm buildings, equip-
Law which contains the following mandate: ment or practices involved and how they are of
"Local governments, when exercising their powers fected;
to enact and administer comprehensive plans and .a copy of the complete local law or ordinance and
local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, shall identification of the specific section or sections in-
exercise these powers in such manner as may realize volved;
the policy and goals set forth in this article [Article .a listing of involved parties who can be contacted
25 AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law], and for further information (including addresses and
shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm op- phone numbers).
erations within agricultural districts in contraven-
tion of the purposes of this article unless it can be Subsequent to receiving a request for review of a
local law or ordinance, the Department will contact the
shown that the public health or safety is threat-
municipality
municipality involved and provide them with an oppor-
tunity to respond.
This brochure has been prepared by the New York
Municipalities
State Department of Agriculture and Markets to assist A request for review must be provided in writing and
municipalities in drafting and administering local laws q
include at least the following information:
and ordinances which may affect farming in an agricul-
tural district. It should not be substituted for legal ad- +the identification of the agricultural district(s) af-
vice from a municipality's attorney. The brochure also fected;
offers guidance to farmers and municipalities on the ap- +a description of the specific law or proposed law
plication of Section 305-a. and how farm buildings, equipment or practices are
The Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets may or maybe affected
independently initiate a review of a proposed or existing +a copy of the complete local law or ordinance and
local law or ordinance or proceed upon the request of a identification of the specific section or sections in-
farmer or municipality in an agricultural district. The volved;
following describes the procedure for requesting review, •a listing of involved parties who can be contacted
how the local requirements are analyzed, and remedi- for further information (including addresses and
ated, if necessary. phone numbers).
PROCEDURE ANALYSIS
Questions concerning the impact of local laws and The Department examines several factors m evaluat-
ordinances on farm operations are solved far more easily ing whether a local law or ordinance is in compliance
at the drafting stage than after the provision is in place. with Section 305-a. Tests that must be met in each case
Municipalities are,therefore, encouraged to contact the are as follows:
Department, either by phone or in writing,in advance of farm located within an agricultural
p + e affected
may restrict farmin
Is th
enacting a law or ordinance whichy g
district?
in an agricultural district. The Department will provide
Section 305-a only applies to farm operations in an
George E.Pa#aki Nathan L.Rodgers agricultural district.
Governor Commissioner
9116103
•Does the regulated activity encompass farm opera- the regulated activity. soy. , it could withstand the lirni-
tions? tations of Section 305-a.
Section 30 1(11) of the Agriculture and Markets Law REMEDIES
defines"Farm Operation" as meaning "...the land and If the Department determines that a local law or or-
on-farm buildings, equipment, manure processing and dinance unreasonably restricts or regulates farm opera-
handling facilities, and practices which contribute to tions in an agricultural district, it will notify the in-
the production, preparation and marketing of crops, volved municipality to that effect and attempt to arrive
livestock and livestock products as a commercial en- at a mutually satisfactory resolution. In the case where a
terprise, including a 'commercial horse boarding op- municipality rejects the Department's attempts at remc-
eration' as defined in subdivision thirteen of this sec- diation, the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets is
tion. Such farm operation may consist of one or more explicitly authorized by law to bring an action to enforce
parcels of owned or rented land, which parcels may be Section 305-a. Alternatively, the Commissioner may
contiguous or noncontiguous to each other." The issue an Order to comply, pursuant to Section 36 of the
definition of"crops, livestock and livestock products" Agriculture and Markets Law.
is found in Section 301(2).
Only farm operations are protected by Section 305-a.
The Department draws on the expertise of its program
and legal staff, and other resources as needed,to make FRequestsfor general information or
these determinations. nd formal written complaints
alleging violations of Section 305-a, should be directed to:
•Does the local law or ordinance unreasonably re- Agricultural Districts Program Administrator
strict or regulate? New York State Department of Agriculture
The evaluation of reasonableness consists of two and Markets
parts: 1)whether the law or ordinance is unreasonably I Winners Circle
restrictive "on its face," and 2) whether it is unrea- Albany,NY 12235
sonably restrictive as applied to a particular situation.
Phone: (518)457-2713
Some laws or ordinances are so vague that they inhibit
fanners from undertaking certain activities or con-
structing certain buildings out of concern for violating
the law or ordinance. In this case, it is possible that
the law or ordinance, because of its vague construc-
tion, could be construed as unreasonably restricting a
farm operation.
An ordinance may also appear reasonable in the ab-
stract,but may unreasonably restrict or regulate a par-
ticular farmer. For example, many zoning ordinances
impose setback requirements for structures in the in-
terest of public safety or even aesthetics. These set-
backs may be entirely reasonable under usual condi-
tions, but may be construed as being unreasonably re-
strictive if applied to a farmer who, for example, con-
structs a building on a dead-end street, shielded from
view,and near the only available water source.
A reasonable exercise of authority in one locality may
translate into an unduly burdensome restriction on
farming in another. in sum, reasonableness depends
on the totality of circumstances in each case.
•Is the public health or safety threatened by the
regulated activity?
Even if the Department determines that a particular
law or ordinance is unreasonably restrictive,it must also
ask whether the pu c earth or safty i-s threaten�y
91'16103
Local Laws and Agricultural Districts:
Guidance for Local Governments and Farmers
Article XIV, Section 4 of the New York State Constitution, added in 1970, provides that the
policy of the State shall be to encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural
lands-for the production of food and other agricultural products and states that the legislature, in
implementing this policy, shall include adequate provision for the protection of agricultural lands.
Shortly thereafter, in 1971, the Agricultural Districts Law, Agriculture and Markets Law (AML)
Article 25-AA, was enacted implementing that policy. Section 305-a of Article 25-AA contains
the following mandate:
"Local governments, when exercising their powers to enact and administer comprehensive
plans and local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, shall exercise these powers in such
manner as may realize the policy and goals set forth in this article [Article 25 AA of the
Agriculture and Markets Law], and shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm
operations within agricultural districts in contravention of the purposes of this article unless
it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened."
For purposes of AML §305-a, subd. 1, "Farm operation" means: "...the land and on-
farm buildings, equipment, manure processing and handling facilities, and practices
which contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and
livestock products as a commercial enterprise, including a 'commercial horse boarding
operation' as defined in subdivision thirteen of this section. Such farm operafion may
consist of one or more parcels of owned or rented land, which parcels may be
contiguous or noncontiguous to each other." The definition of "crops, livestock and
livestock products" is contained in AML §301(2).
The brochure Local Laws and Agricultural Districts: How Do They Relate? was prepared by
the Department to assist municipalities in drafting and administering local laws and ordinances
which may affect farming in an agricultural district_ The brochure also offers guidance to
farmers on the application of AML §305-a. Local governments and farmers are encouraged to
review that document for information on the procedure for requesting Department assistance as
well as general discussion of the law. The following guidelines provide more details on the
application of AML §305-a to several common agricultural topics. However, they should not be
substituted for legal advice from a municipality's attorney. The Department hopes that this
information will assist local governments and farmers in resolving issues that may impact farm
operations within their communities.'
GENERAL INFORMATION
In examining whether a local law is unreasonably restrictive, the Department of Agriculture
and Markets considers several factors, including, but not limited to: whether the requirements
adversely affect the farm operator's ability to manage the farm operation effecfively and
efficiently; whether the requirements restrict production options which could affect the economic
viability of the farm; whether the requirements will cause a lengthy delay in the construction of a
farm building or implementation of a practice; the cost of compliance for the farm operation
affected; and the availability of less onerous means to achieve the locality's objective. The
Local laws and their administration are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. These guidance documents are intended
to inform local governments and farmers generally of how the Department interprets and applies ANM§305-a. The
facts and circumstances of each particular matter are addressed uniformly and in accordance with applicable
statutary requirements.
3/23104
Department also takes into account any relevant standards established under State law and
regulations. Where local standards have exceeded the State standards, the Department has, in
many instances, found the local laws to be unreasonably restrictive. Each law, however, is
examined on its own merits. If a local government believes that local conditions warrant
standards that differ from the State's, the Department considers those conditions in evaluating
whether the local standards are unreasonably restrictive.
The Department recognizes and encourages the efforts of some local governments to
comply with AML §305-a by providing a Right to Farm exemption, for example, stating that
"[n]othing contained herein shall be deemed to limit the right to farm as set forth in Article 25-AA
of the NYS Agriculture& Markets Law...." Such local laws often further provide that no "sound
agricultural practice" as defined in Article 25-AA shall be deemed prohibited under the ordinance
or subject to its permit requirements. This provision could be problematic for both the local
government and farm operations. AML §308 (New York's Right to Farm law) does not define
"sound agricultural practices." The Department does not make prospective judgments on
agricultural practices and has not defined what constitutes a sound agricultural practice.
Section 308 requires that agricultural practices be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Department staff review each practice, for which an opinion is requested, on its own merit and a
Commissioner's Opinion only examines the condition and management of the practice in effect
at the time of the review. Further, the absence of an opinion from the Commissioner does not
mean that a particular practice is unsound.
Under the procedures followed by the Department in conducting sound agricultural practice
reviews, generally staff consult the landowner, neighbors, State and local agencies, pertinent
literature and experts in the particular field of interest. The landowner whose practice is under
review generally needs to be a willing participant for the Department to fully evaluate a practice
and reach a valid conclusion as to its soundness. Information regarding management of the
practice and grant of access to the farm premises is usually needed from the farmer. The
review process is time consuming and generally takes from six to twelve months before an
opinion is issued. To require a farmer to obtain an opinion to avoid prosecution or permitting
under the local law would be unduly burdensome and, generally, unreasonably restrictive.
AVAILABLE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
1. Application to Request a Review Pursuant to Section 305-a of the AML
2. Brochure entitled Local Laws and Agricultural Districts: How Do They Relate?
3. Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting Farm Worker Housing
4. Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting Nutrient Management Practices (i.e. Land
Application of Animal Waste, Recognizable and Non-recognizable Food Waste, Sewage
Sludge and Septage; Animal Waste Storage/Management)
5. Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting On-Farm Open Burning
6. Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting the Control of Farm Animals
7. Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting Farm Operations' Use of Wetlands
8. Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting Direct Farm Marketing Activities
9. Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting On-Farm Composting Facilities
10. Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting Temporary Greenhouses
11. Guideline for Review of Local Zoning and Planning Laws
12. Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting Commercial Horse Boarding Operations
13: Guideline for Review of Local Laws Affecting Junk and Junkyards
3123104
Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting
Commercial Horse Boarding Operations
In 2001 the Agriculture and Markets Law (AML) was amended to include commercial
horse boarding operations in the definition of a "farm operation" under AML §301,
subdivision 11. This amendment recognized that commercial horse boarding
operations are farm operations and as such should receive AML §305-a protection from
unreasonably restrictive local laws. (Previously, commercial horse boarding operations
were only eligible for agricultural assessments.)
Under AML §301, subd. 11, "farm operation" means "...the land and on-farm
buildings, equipment, manure processing and handling facilities, and practices which
contribute to the production, preparation, and marketing of crops, livestock, and
livestock products as a commercial enterprise, including a 'commercial horse boarding
operation' as defined in subdivision thirteen of this section. Such farm operation may
consist of one or more parcels of owned or rented land, which dparcels may efines contiguous or noncontiguous, to each other." AML §30'1, subd. 13efines the term
"commercial horse boarding operation" as "...an agricultural enterprise, consisting of at
least seven acres and boarding at least ten horses, regardless of ownership, that
receives ten thousand dollars or more in gross receipts annually from fees generated
either through the boarding of horses or through the production for sale of crops,
livestock, and livestock products, or through both such boarding and such production.
Under no circumstances steall this subdivision be construed to include operations whose
primary on site function is horse racing."
The Department has consistentlyviewed the raising, breeding, boarding and sale of
sion 11. A
se
horses as a "farm operation" under AML §301,services and training to anirmals keption
operation provides care, housing, health related se 9
the premises or on other properties owned or leased by the farm operator. Riding and
training activities that are directly related to and incidental to the boarding and raising of
ons who own or have a long-term lease from the
horses, including riding lessons for pers
farm owner for the horse that is boarded for tactivities, are
he
either boarded at or owned by the
part of the farm operation. Horse showsorsfarm and used for l
farm operation, which are not open to the general public, are also part of the farm
operation. The Department does not consider a riding academy to be an agricultural
activity under the AML A riding academy generally offers riding lessons to the public
and to individuals that do not own or have a long-term lease for the horse that is
boarded and used at the facility for such riding. Local zoning laws which include
definitions and.provisions for riding academies or commercial horse boarding operations
should include language which distinguishes between the types of operations.
In general, the construction of on-farm buildings and the use of land for agricultural
purposes should not require site pian review, special use permits or be subjected to
non-conforming use requirements when located in a county adopted, State certified
of an agricultural district is to encourage the
agricultural district. The purpose
development and improvement of agricultural land and the use of agricultural land for
6124144
..... ............... .. .. .. . .
the production of food and other agricultural products is recognized by the New York
State Constitution, Article XIV, Section 4. Therefore, generally, agricultural uses and
the construction of on-farm buildings as part of a farm operation should be permitted
uses when the farm operation is located within an agricultural district.
The application of site plan and special permit requirements to farm operations can
have significant adverse impacts on such operations. Site plan and special permit
review, depending upon the specific requirements in a local law, can be expensive due
to the need to retain professional assistance to certify plans or simply to prepare the
type of detailed plans required by the law. The lengthy approval process in some local
laws can be burdensome, especially considering a farm's need to undertake
management and production practices in a timely and efficient manner. Site plan and
special permit fees can be especially costly for start-up farm operations. Therefore,
absent any showing of an overriding local concern, generally, an exemption from site
plan and special use permit requirements should be provided to farm operations located
within an agricultural district. However, as discussed in more detail in the Department's
Guidelines for Review of Local Zoning and Planning Laws, the Department recognizes
the desire of some local governments to have an opportunity to review agricultural
development and projects within their borders. Therefore, the Department developed a
model streamlined site plan review process which attempts to respond to farmers'
concerns while ensuring that local issues are examined.
Generally, farmers should exhaust their local administrative remedies and seek, for
example, certain permits, exemptions available under local law or area variances before
the Department reviews the administration of a local law. However, an administrative
requirement/process may, itself, be unreasonably restrictive. The Department
evaluates the reasonableness of the specific requirement/process, as well as the
substantive requirements imposed on the farm operation. The Department has found
local laws which regulate the health and safety aspects of the construction of farm
buildings through provisions to meet focal building codes or the State Uniform Fire
Prevention and Building Code ("Uniform Code") [unless exempt from the Uniform Code
under Building Code §101.2(2) and Fire Code §102.1(5)] and Health Department
requirements for potable water and sewage disposal not to be unreasonably restrictive.
Requirements for local building permits and certificates of occupancy to ensure that
health and safety requirements are met are also generally not unreasonably restrictive.
The following are some specific matters that the Department considers when
reviewing a local law that affects commercial horse boarding operations:
A. Minimum Lot Size
The AML states that a commercial horse boarding operation must be at least seven
acres in size. A Town's limitation on the number of horses allowed per acre could be
unreasonably restrictive. The Department considers, among other things, the impacts
Please see Guidelines for Review of Local Zoning and Planning Laws for further general discussion of
each of these issues.
$124104
on a particular farm operation to determine if a density limitation is unreasonably
restrictive. if pasture is to be used for sustenance, then one acre of pasture per horse is
usually appropriate. If the area is to be used for a turn-out area, then five or more head
may be carried on one acre of land. Most commercial horse boarding operations are
closed systems where they are conducted on smaller acreage, feed is brought in and
manure is exported off the farm. Horses are exercised in various arenas, indoor and
outdoor, and rotated in small rectangular fenced areas (paddocks).
B. Setbacks
Minimum setbacks from front, back and side yards for farm buildings have not been
viewed as unreasonable unless a setback distance is unusually long. Setbacks that
coincide with those required for other similar structures have, in general, been viewed
as reasonable.
A farm operation's barns, storage buildings and other facilities may already be
located within a required setback, or the farm operation may need to locate new
facilities within the setback to meet the farm operation's needs. Also, adjoining land
may consist of vacant land, woodland or farmland. The establishment of unreasonable
setback distances increases the cost of doing business for farmers because the
infrastructure needed to support the operation (e.g., water supply, utilities and farm
roads) is often already located within, and adjacent to, the farmstead area or existing
farm structures. Setbacks can also increase the cost of, or make it impracticable to
construct new structures for the farm operation.
Requiring setbacks from property lines for riding trails may be unreasonably
restrictive. If riding trails are located in or adjacent to fields that are used for the
production of hay or other field crops, a minimum setback from a property line would
take land out of production. In such instances, the trail would generally be located
closer to the property line to reduce the amount of land taken out of production and
reduce the amount of operating costs and time necessary to maintain a swath of
unusable land established by a setback.
C. Screening
Some local laws require a landowner to screen an agricultural activity from adjacent
non-agricultural uses. The Department has previously determined that a requirement to
screen agricultural activities from adjoining non-agricultural uses is unreasonably
restrictive. While aesthetics are an appropriate and important consideration under
zoning and planning laws, the purpose of the Agricultural Districts Law is to conserve
and protect agricultural lands by promoting the retention of farmland in active
agricultural use. Screening requirementssuggest
ages that don agricultural
t abe sceeened
s are
objectionable or different from other forms of land
Fanners should not be required to bear the extra costs to provide screening unless it is
required to address a threat to the public health or safety.
6124104
D. Event Permits
Local laws that require a special permit to hold public events, shows, rodeos,
competitive events, etc. are, in general, not unreasonably restrictive when the event
involves the general public and not just those individuals who board their horses on the
farm. If the event is limited to those individuals who board their horses on the farm, a
special permit should not be required.
E. Sign Limitations
The administration of local law provisions which regulate signs may unreasonably
restrict a commercial horse boarding farm operation. Such farm operations may need
to use signs to advertise the name of the farm and the services it offers. Paddocks and
barns may not be visible from the road and therefore the farm may need to use an
adequately sized on-premises sign or locate a sign(s) at off-premises locations.
Whether or not a limitation on the size andlor number of signs that may be used to
advertise a commercial horse boarding operation is unreasonably restrictive depends
primarily on the location of the operation. An operation located on a principally traveled
road probably will not need as many signs as one which is located on a less traveled
road and may need directional signs to direct the public to the premises.
F. Farm Worker Housing
Farm worker housing, including mobile homes (also known as "manufactured
homes"), is an integral part of numerous farm operations. Farmers often provide on-
farm housing for their farm laborers to, among other things, accommodate the long
workday, meet seasonal housing needs and address the shortage of nearby rental
housing in rural areas. Generally, in evaluating the use of farm labor housing under
§305-a, the Department considers whether the housing is used for seasonal and/or full-
time employees and their families; is provided by the farm operator (irrespective of
whether the operator owns or rents the farm for the production of agricultural products);
and whether the employee to be housed is engaged in the production function(s) of the
farm operation and is not a partner or owner of the farm operation. The Department
does not consider the primary residence of the owner or partner of the farm operation to
be protected under §305-a. For further discussion see the Department's Guidelines for
Review of Local Laws Affecting Farm Worker Housing.
G. Noise
Some local laws have established maximum permitted sound pressure levels. For
example, one local law prohibited noise from exceeding a maximum decibel level, which
was reduced by six decibels for lots within two hundred feet of a residence district.
Such noise provisions may unreasonably restrict farm operations within an agricultural
district. According to an article written by David E. Baker entitled Noise: The Invisible
Hazard (University Extension, University of Missouri-Columbia, published October
1993), a chain saw has a decibel level of 120 and tractors, farm equipment and power
6124104
saws have a decibel level of 900. Inside an acoustically insulated tractor cab, the
decibel level is 85. This type of equipment is commonly used along and/or near
property boundaries and may exceed maximum decibel levels allowed by a local law.
H. Smoke, Dust
Local laws may regulate smoke and other particulate matter. Such laws often
prohibit measurable emission of dust or other particulate matter. These provisions may
unreasonably restrict farm operations. Some measure of dust usually occurs with the
tillage of land and may not subside until the area is populated with crops. Furthermore,
horse operations may, from time to time, have bare spots within fields that could be a
cause for airborne particulate matter and dust. Horses and other livestock may roll or
dig up the turf. Dust may also occasionally come from paths used by livestock and from
riding rings. Particulate matter may also become airborne from mowing and other field
maintenance activities. Further, the regular operations of a farm typically involve the
removal of trees and brush during field clearing and maintenance; the removal or
trimming of diseased fruit canes, vines, and trees; and the removal of vegetative
material from cultivated wetlands, among other things. These materials are often
disposed of on the farm by open burning. On-farm open burning is considered by the
Department to be a practice that is part of a "farm operation" and thus protected from
unreasonable local restriction. Open burning is regulated by the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). Local laws should allow opendiscussionburg consistent
with the DEC's regulations and/or guidance. For
ee the
Department's Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting On-Farm Open Burning.
I. Nutrient Management
Nutrient Management Practices are an essential component of any farm operation
and are protected under AML §305-a from unreasonable local restrictions. Traditionally,
farm operators use animal waste as a main source of nutrients for crop production.
Many commercial horse boarding operations may not have enough land for crop
_production or may have excess horse manure. Generally, manure from commercial
horse boarding operations is either composted and spread on fields or stored and
removed off-site. In general, the Department believes that any local waste
management laws should provide exemptions to allow the land application, storage,
and/or composting of animal waste, for agricultural purposes on farm operations within
a county adopted, State certified agricultural district. The DEC regulates most types of
solid wastes pursuant to 5 NYCRR Part 380, but exempts animal waste from this
regulation. The Department considers the standards and permitting requirements under
the DEC's regulations in evaluating whether restrictions on agricultural land use and
nutrient management practices are unreasonably Guldelintese in for violation
fLocalML 3Laws
For further discussion see the Department's
Affecting Nutrient Management Practices.
- roducts includin manure, must be utilized or disposed
Agricultural wastes and by p g
Of in an environmentally safe manner. It is the Department's view that it is not
6124104
unreasonably restrictive for a local government to require that a commercial horse
boarding operation submit a plan that describes how its manure will either be used or
removed from the farm (e.g. by landspreading, composting, or periodic removal).
Manure should not be stored and remain on the farm for a period in excess of one year.
The composting of such agricultural waste is a preferred method because it is recycled
and utilized as a soil amendment to enhance plant growth for both crop production and
off-farm uses (e.g. landscaping, home gardens, etc.). Agriculture and Markets Law
§305-a, subdivision 1 protects the on-farm composting of these materials when the
composting is part of the agricultural production function of the farm, that is, the farm
composts to rid the farm of its excess agricultural waste or the farm composts to create
a soil amendment for crop production. For further discussion please refer to the
Department's Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting On-Farm Composting
Facilities.
J. Odor
Some local laws prohibit any land use which emits any discernible odor outside the
building in which the use is conducted or beyond the lot line of the property. Livestock
operations emit odors associated with the animals themselves, the feed, and livestock
manure. The amount of odor that can be tolerated by an individual varies and quantities
discernible to one person may not be to another. The actual odor regulation and its
administration would have to be examined to determine whether or not a farm is
unreasonably restricted.
K. Animal Control
Generally, farmers are responsible for the care, safety and confinement of livestock
in their charge. Farm operations must provide adequate fencing and gates to confine
livestock in a safe and reasonable manner. The public needs to be protected from
livestock that may cause bodily harm and/or property damage if the animals venture off
the farm. Therefore, local animal control laws that require livestock to be confined and
not "run at large" without restraint, confinement or supervision, are reasonable and help
to protect public health and safety. Local governments should be aware that
commercial horse boarding farms may need to install fences with a height greater than
may be allowed under a local law (e.g., certain horses may not be adequately confined
by a maximum three or four feet fence). For further discussion please refer to the
Department's Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting the Control of Farm
Animals.
6124104
Guidelines for Review of Local Zoning and Planning Laws
Background and Objective
As communities adopt or amend zoning regulations, potential conflicts
between farm operations and local land use controls may increase. This,
coupled with continuing exurban development pressures on many of the State's
agricultural communities, increases the need to better coordinate focal planning
and the agricultural districts program, and to develop guidelines to help address
conflicts which may occur. Proactively, guidelines can aid in crafting zoning
regulations by municipalities with significant farming activities.
Zoning and Farm Operations: Practical Limitations and Problems
Farms are host to several discrete but interdependent land uses which may
include barns, commodity sheds, farm worker housing, garages, direct farm
markets, silos, manure storage facilities, milking parlors, stables, poultry houses
and greenhouses, to name but a few. The typical zoning regulation, in addition
to establishing minimum lot sizes and separations between uses, often prohibits
more than one "principal" structure on each parcel of record. Many zoning
devices, then, are unable to distinguish between on-farm structures as part of a
farm operation from the same building when it is used for an independent,
freestanding use.
The minimum separation and "yard" requirements of zoning are designed to
avoid over concentration, maintain adequate spaces for light and air, and to
reduce fire hazard in more urban environments. The application of such
requirements to suburban and rural communities and farm operations often
results in the unintended regulation of farm operations and uses not as an
integrated whole, but as separate improvements.
The rapidly changing nature of the agricultural industry does not always allow
zoning and the comprehensive planning process to keep pace. This can result in
the application of outdated regulations to contemporary land uses and gives rise
to potentially unreasonable restrictions. Local governments may run afoul of the
letter and intent of the Agricultural Districts Law by limiting the type and intensity
of agricultural uses in their communities and by narrowly defining "farm" or
"agricultural activity." This is sometimes problematic even in municipalities with a
significant base of large, "production" level farming operations. Inadequately
defined terms also give rise to conflict between the zoning device and farm
operations.
Because of the inherent nature of zoning, there isessentially
standards are to
administrative authority to waive its standards, even when
at
variance with the community's land use policy and what may be deemed its
"intent." A municipal zoning board of appeals may, consistent with specific tests
1
9116/03
found in Town, Village and City Law, vary the use and area standards of a zoning
regulation, and reverse or affirm determinations of the zoning administrative
official. Such a remedy: i.e., an area or use variance, may, however, in and of
itself be considered "unreasonably restrictive" if it is the only means available to
establish, expand or improve a "farm operation" in a county adopted, State
certified agricultural district.
These and other limitations and problems that can lead to AML §305-a
violations may be avoided in the first instance by sound comprehensive planning.
The Town Law, Village Law, General City Law and the Agricultural Districts Law
are designed to encourage coordination of local planning and land use decision
making with the agricultural districts program.
Agricultural Districts and County Agricultural and Farmland Protection
Plans: Their Influence on the Municipal Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Process
The preparation, adoption and administration of a municipal comprehensive
plan and zoning regulation are not independent actions of local government, but
should be part of a well thought out, seamless process. A zoning regulation is, in
the final analysis, simply a device to implement the community plan and, in fact,
"... must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan ..." [Town Law §272-
a(11)(a)]
The State Legislature has. codified the intent, definition and content of the
comprehensive plan (Town Law §272-a, Village Law §7-722 and General City
Law §28-a). In so doing, the Legislature has given significant status to
"agricultural uses" in general, and State certified agricultural districts and county
agricultural and farmland protection plans created under Agriculture and Markets
Law Articles 25-AA and 25-AAA in particular. Town Law §272-a (9) requires
agricultural review and coordination with the comprehensive planning process:
`A town comprehensive plan and any amendments thereto, for a town
containing all or part of an agricultural district or lands receiving agricultural
assessments within its jurisdiction, shall continue to be subject to the provisions
of article twenty-five-AA of the agriculture and markets law relating to the
enactment and administration of local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations.. A
newly adopted or amended town comprehensive plan shall fake into
consideration applicable county agricultural and farmland protection plans as
created under article twenty-five-AAA of the agriculture and markets law."
(The same language is found in Village Law and General City Law.)
Thus, the statutory influence the Agricultural Districts Law and the Agricultural
and Farmland Protection programs have on the comprehensive planning process
and zoning regulations is significant. State certified agricultural districts and
2
9116103
county agricultural and farmland protection plans are community shaping
influences in much the same way as existing and proposed infrastructure;
wetlands, floodplains, topographical features; cultural, historic and social
amenities; economic needs; etc. are viewed.and encourage the development and
ural Districts Law is a
valuable planning tool to conserve, P protect a ricultural lands as valued
improvement of the agricultural economy; p g
natural and ecological resources; and preserve open space.
In addition to AML §305-a, limitations on local authority nTown
oninw §28sts a e
and Village Law §7-739 were enacted to ensure thatagricultural
taken into consideration during the review of specific land use proposals. Town
Law §283-a (1) and Village Law §7-739(1), as recently amended by Chapter 331
of the Laws of 2002, require local governments to "...exercise their powers to
enact local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations that
apply
to farm operations etr
an agricultural district in a manner which does not
unrregulate farm operations in contravention of the purposes of article twenty-five-
AA of the agriculture and markets law, unless it can be shown that the public
health or safety is threatened." The recent amendments make the Town and
Village Law provisions consistent with AML §305-a regarding showing a threat to
the public health or safety. AML §305-a, subd.1 is not a stand-alone requirement
for coordination of local planning and land use decision making with the
agricultural districts program. Rather, it is one that is fully integrated with the
comprehensive planning, zoning and land use review process.
Application of Local Laws to Farm operations within Agricultural Districts
In general, the construction of on-farm buildings and the use of land for
agricultural purposes should not be subject to site plan review, special use
permits or non-conforming use requirements when conducted in a county
adopted, State certified agricultural district. The purpose of an agricultural district
is to encourage the development and improvement of agricultural land and the
use of agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products
as recognized by the New York State Constitution, Article XIV, Section 4.
Therefore, generally, agricultural uses and the construction of on-farm buildings
as part of a farm operation should be allowed uses when the farm operation is
located within an agricultural district.
Town Law §274-b, subdivision 1 allows a town board to authorize a planning
board or other designated administrative body to grant special use permits as set,
forth in a zoning ordinance or local law. Special use permit" is defined as "...an
authorization of a particular land use which is permitted in a zoning ordinance or
focal law to assure that the proposed use is in harmony with such zoning
ordinance or local law and will not adversely affect the neighborhood if such
requirements are met." Agricultural uses in an agricultural district are not,
however, "special uses." They are constitutionally lt� nias
and uses which
are protected by AML §305-a, subd1 Further, agrcuafritts are created
_.._ 3
9116103
and reviewed locally through a process which includes public notice and hearing,
much like zoning laws are adopted and amended. Therefore, absent any
showing of an overriding local concern, generally, an exemption from special use
permit requirements should be provided to farm operations located within an
agricultural district.
The application of site plan and special permit requirements to farm
operations can have significant adverse impacts on such operations. Site plan
and special permit review, depending upon the specific requirements in a local
law, can be expensive due to the need to retain professional assistance to certify
plans or simply to prepare the type of detailed plans required by the law. The
lengthy approval process in some local laws can be burdensome, especially
considering a farm's need to undertake management and production practices in
a timely and efficient manner. Site plan and special permit fees can be
especially costly for start-up farm operations.
Generally, farmers should exhaust their local administrative remedies and
seek, for example, permits, exemptions available under local law or area
variances before the Department reviews the administration of a local law.
However, an administrative requirement/process may, itself, be unreasonably
restrictive. The Department evaluates the reasonableness of the specific
requirement/process, as well as the substantive requirements imposed on the
farm operation. The Department has found local laws which regulate the health
and safety aspects ofthe des o or g provisions uction of farm buildings through
to
meet local building ca State Build Code (unless a empt from the
State Building Code 1) and Health Department requirements not to be
unreasonably restrictive. Requirements for local building permits and certificates
of occupancy to ensure that health and safety requirements are met are also
generally not unreasonably restrictive.
Site Plan Review for Farm Operations within an Agricultural District
Many local governments share the Department's view that farm operations
should not have to undergo site plan
eview and empt ofsome local farms
from that
requirement. However, the Department
recognizes the desire
governments to have an opportunity to review agricultural development and
projects within their borders, as well as the need of farmers for an efficient,
economical, and predictable
ll�edesite I lanview
reviewboth
processinterests,
which Department
seto
developed a model stream p
respond to the farmers' concerns while ensuring the ability to have local issues
examined. The process could be used for farm buildings and structures (new
and significant expansions) proposed for a site, but should not be required for
non-structural agricultural uses. For example, to require farm operations in an
agricultural distirct to undergo site plan review to enage in the production,
A discussion of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code follows below.
9116103
preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products, would
generally be unreasonably restricitve.
The authorizing statutes for requiring site plan review are quite broad and
under "home rule" muncipalities retain signicant flexibility in crafting specialized
procedures (e.g., the selection of a reviewing board; uses which trigger
submission of site plans; whether to have a public hearing and the length of time
to review an application). Town Law §274-a and Village Law §7-725-a define a
site plan as "a rendering, drawing, or sketch prepared to specifications and
containing necessary elements as set forth in the applicable zoning ordinance or
local law which shows the arrangement, layout and design of the proposed use
of a single parcel of land... ." These sections of law further outline a list of
potential site plan elements including parking, means of access, screening,
signs, landscaping,_ architectural features, location and dimensions of buildings,
adjacent land uses and physical features meant to protect adjacent land uses as
well as additional elements.
Many municipalities have also added optional phases to the site plan review.
While a preliminary conference, preliminary site plan review and public hearings
may assist the applicant earlier in the review process and provide the public an
opportunity to respond to a project, they can result in a costly delay for the
farmer.
For the sake of simplicity, the model site plan process and the following
guidance presume that the planning board is the reviewing authority.
Site Plan Process
The applicant for site plan review and approval shall submit the following:
1) Sketch of the parcel on a location map (e.g., tax map) showing boundaries
and dimensions of the parcel of land involved and identifying contiguous
properties and any known easements or rights-of-way and roadways.
Show the existing features of the site including land and water areas, water or
sewer systems and the approximate location of all existing structures on or
immediately adjacent to the site.
2) Show the proposed location and arrangement of buildings and uses on the
site, including means of ingress and egress, parking and circulation of traffic.
3) Sketch of any proposed building, structure or sign, including exterior
dimensions and elevations of front, side and rear views. Include copies of
any available blueprints, plans or drawings.
s
9116103
4) Provide a description of the project and a narrative of the intended use of
such proposed buildings, structures or signs, including any anticipated
changes in the existing topography and natural features of the parcel to
accommodate the changes. Include the name and address of the applicant
and any professional advisors. If the applicant is not the owner of the
property, provide authorization of the owner.
5) If any new structures are going to be located adjacent to a stream or wetland
provide a copy of the floodplain map and wetland map that corresponds with
the boundaries of the property.
6) Application form and fee (if required).
If the municipality issues a permit for the structure, the Code Enforcement
Officer (CEO) determines if the structures are subject to and comply with the
local building code or New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code
prior to issuing the permit. Similarly, the Zoning Enforcement Officer (or the CEO
in certain municipalities) would ensure compliance with applicable zoning
provisions.
The Department urges local governments to take into account the size and
nature of the particular farm buildings and structures when setting and
administering any site plan requirements for farm operations. The review
process, as outlined above, should generally not require professional assistance
(e.g., architects,engineers or surveyors) to complete or review and could be
completed relatively quick]Y.2 The Department understands, however, that in
some cases, a public hearing and/or a more detailed review of the project which
may include submission of a survey, architectural or engineering drawings or
plans, etc., may be necessary. The degree of regulation that may be considered
unreasonably restrictive depends on the nature of the proposed activities, the
size and complexity of the proposed buildings or structures and whether a State
agricultural exemption applies.
Time Frame for Review and Decision
a site
Town Law §274-a and Village a maximum§7-725-aof 62require
daysthat
afterdecision
receiptnof the
plan application be made withi
application or date of a public hearing, if one is required, Town and Village Law
authorize town boards and village boards of trustees to adopt public hearing
requirements and local laws often provide planning boards with the discretion
whether to hold a public hearing_ The Department recommends that if the
municipality requires construction of farm buildings and structures within a state
certified agricultural district to undergo site plan review, that the review and
decision be expedited within 45 days, with no public hearing. The Department
recognizes that the Town Law allows municipalities to determine which uses
2 Please see discussion of Agricultural Exemptions below.
9116103
must undergo site plan review, the time frame for review (within the 62 day
maximum), and whether to conduct a public hearing. A protracted review of most
agricultural projects could, however, result in significant economic impacts to
farmers.
The process outlined above affords the community an opportunity to examine
a proposed agricultural project and to evaluate and mitigage potential impacts in
light of public health, safety and welfare without unduly burdening farm
operations. Of course, the "process" must also be adminstered in a manner that
does not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations. For example,
conditions placed upon an approval or the cost and time involved to complete the
review process could be unreasonably restrictive.
Agricultural Exemptions
State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) - Agricultural farm
management practices, including construction, maintenance and repair of farm
buildings and structures, and land use changes consistent with "generally
accepted principles of farming" are designated as Type 11 actions which do not
require preparation of an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and are not
subject to compliance with State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). 6
NYCRR §617.5(a), (c)(3). [See In the Matter of Pure Air and Wafer Inc. of
Chemung County v. Davidsen, 246 A.D.2d 786, 668 N.Y.S.2d 248 (3Td Dept.
1998), for application of the exemption to the manure management activities of a
hog farm.] The SEQR regulations require localities to recognize the Type II
actions contained in the statewide list.
New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code - While
farmers must comply with local requirements which regulate health and safety
aspects of the construction of farm buildings, many farm buildings are exempt
from the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code ("Uniform Code"). The
Uniform Code recently underwent major revisions and now is comprised of seven
sub-codes (the Building Code, Fire Code, Residential Code, Plumbing Code,
Mechanical Code, Fuel Gas Code, and the Property Maintenance Code). The
exemption for agricultural buildings has been incorporated in the following
portions of the revised Uniform Code and the Energy Conservation Construction
Code, which became fully effective on January 1, 2003.
Agricultural building is defined in §202 of the Building Code as "A structure
designed and constructed to house farm implements, hay, grain, poultry,
livestock, or other horticultural products. This structure shall not be a place
of human habitation or a place of employment where agricultural products are
processed, treated or packaged, nor shall it be a place used by the public."
9116103
• Building Code §101.2(2) provides an exemption from the Building Code for
"[a]gricultural buildings used solely in titin arfarmg, operatic or storage of
agricultural products by a farmer engage
Section 102.1(5) of the Fire Code of New York State provides that
• "[a]gricultural buildings used solely in the raising, growing or storage of
agricultural products by a farmer engaged in a farming operation" are exempt
from the provisions of the Fire Cade pertaining to construction but are subject
to applicable requirements of fire safety practice and m• ethodology.
Section 101.4.2.5 of the Energy Conservation Construction Code ("ECCC")
exempts "nonresidential farm buildings, including barns, sheds, poultry
houses and other buildings and equipment on the premises used directly and
solely for agricultural purposes" from the provisions of the ECCC.
The above briefly highlights the agricultural buildings exemptions. Any
specific questions regarding the interpretation and applicability of the revised
State Uniform Fire Protection and Building should be directed to the
Department of State's Codes Division at ( ) 74-40
Professionally Stamped Plans - Education Law §7209(1) provides that no
official of the State or any city, county, town or village chargee anged y
the
enforcement of laws, ordinances or regulations may accept or app y Pfans
or specifications that are not stamped with the seal of an architect, or
professional engineer, or land surveyor licensed or authorized to practice in the
State. Thus, where local laws, ordinances or regulations require that plans and
specifications for private construction beacceptedseal, subjeor ct t etdhehey may exceptionstset
be
accepted or approved without the required
forth in the statute. 1981 Op Atty Gen April 27 (informal).
However, the exceptions contained in Education Law §7209(7)(b) include
"farm buildings, including barns, sheds, poultry houses and other buildings used
directly and solely for agricultural purposes." As a d Vit' anplarchitecns a
specifications for such buildings are not required to be stamp y
professional engineer or land surveyor.3
Against this backdrop, specific guidelines for review of zoning and planning
regulations by local governments and the Department can best be understood.
Generic Review Guidelines
Generic reviews are those of entire zoning regulations or sections of zoning
as a class regulations that impact the municipality's faractions tionsunity which might �esul# inr a
farm operations in the same way. Examples
generic review include the adoption or administration of an entirely new or
3 similar requirements and exceptions are also provided in Education Law§7307(1) and (5). —�—
9116103
substantially amended zoning regulation that results in a material change in the
use and area standards applied to farm operations in a State certified agricultural
district. In such cases, the Department recommends that the municipality ask
itself the following questions:
• Do the regulations materially limit the definition of farm operation, farm
or agriculture in a way that conflicts with the definition of "farm
operation" in AML §301, subd.11?
• Do the regulations relegate any farm operations in agricultural districts
to "non-conforming" status?
• Is the production, preparation and marketing of any crop, livestock or
livestock product as a commercial enterprise materially limited,
resticted or prohibited?
• Are certain classes of agriculture subject to more intensive reviews or
permitting requirements than
tloth�h n For epaodulction "animal
without
agriculture" treated differently
demonstrated links to a specc and meaningful
a real and tangible public health or safety
standard designed to address
• Are any classes of agricultural activities meeting the definition of "farm
operation" subject to special permit, site plan review or other original
jurisdiction review standard over and above ministerial review?
• Are "farm operations" subject to more intensive reviews than non-farm
uses in the same zoning district?
• Are "farm operations" treated as integrated and interdependent uses,
or collections of independent and competing uses on the same
property?
is the regulation in accordance with a comprehensive plan and is such
• a plan crafted consistent with AML Article 25-AA as regired by law?
If the answer to any of the first six questions is "yes," or if the answer to either
of the last two is "no," the zoning regulations under review are likely to be
problematic and may be in violatiotion of
�,§ina onsistend# with the l statutorynly such
regulations would appear to be on the
requirement that "Local governments ••• sll exercise these ef forth in this articleawers jArt clen25AA-
such
manner as may realize the policy and goals
Agricultural Districts]."
Guidelines for Site Specific Reviews
AML §305-a zoning case reviews often involve application of zoning
regulations to a specific farm operation. Such cases typically result from
applying the site plan, special use permit, use or non-conforming use sections,
yard requirements, or lot density sections of the municipal zoning device to an
existing farm operation.
9116103
These cases often evolve because although the zoning regulation may
appear to be consistent with the agricultural districts law, its application to a
specific issue or set of facts is not. In such cases, the Department recommends
that the municipality ask itself the following questions.'
• Is the zoning regulation or restriction being applied to a use normally
and customarily associated with a "farm operation" as defined in AML
Article 25-AA?
• Does the regulation or restriction materially limit the expansion or
improvement of the operation without offering some compelling public
benefit?
• Is the regulation or restriction applicable to the specific farm operation
in question or, under the same circumstances, would it apply to other
farm operations in the community?
• Does the zoning regulation impose greater regulation or restriction on
a use or farming activity than may already be imposed by State or
federal statute, rule or regulation?
• Is the regulation or restriction the result of legislative action that
rendered the farm operation a "non-conforming use"?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then the zoning regulation or
restriction under review is likely to be problematic and may be in violation of the
statutory prohibitions against unreasonably restrictive regulation of farm
operations in an agricultural district, unless a threat to the public health or safety
is demonstrated.
Guidance on Specific Zoning Issues
The following are some specific factors that the Department considers when
reviewing local zoning laws
A. Minimum and Maximum Dimensions
Generally the Department will consider whether minimum and maximum
dimensions imposed by a local law can accommodate existing andlor future farm
needs. For example, many roadside stands are located within existing garages,
barns, and outbuildings that may have dimensions greater than those set by a
local ordinance. Also, buildings specifically designed and constructed to
accommodate farm activities may not meet the local size requirements (e.g.,
silos and barns which may exceed maximum height limitations). The size and
scope of the farm operation should also be considered. Larger farms, for
example, cannot effectively market their produce through a traditional roadside
4 Please see other Department guidance documents for further information on issues related to
specific types of farm buildings and practices.
10
9116103
stand and may require larger farm markets with utilities, parking, sanitary
facilities, etc.
B. Lot Size
Establishing a minimum lot size for farm operations within a zoning district
that includes land within a State certified agricultural district might be
unreasonably restrictive. The definition of "farm operation" in AML §301, subd.
11 does not include an acreage threshold. Therefore, the Department has not
set a minimum acreage necessary for protection under AML §305-a and
conducts reviews on a case-by-case basis. For example, a nursery/greenhouse
operation conducted on less than 5 or 10 acres may be protected as a "farm
operation" under §305-a if the operation is a "commercial enterprise" and more
than a hobby farm.
For agricultural assessment purposes, however, AML §301, subd. 4 states
that a farm must have "land used in agricultural production" to qualify (either
seven or more acres and gross sales of an average of $10,000 or more in the
preceding two years or have less than seven acres and average gross sales of
more than $50,000 in the preceding two years). A recent amendment to AML
§301, subd. 4 also provides for an agricultural assessment on seven or more
acres which has an annual gross sales of $10,000 or more "...when such land is
owned or rented by a newly established farm operation in the first year of
operation." AML §301, subd. 4.h. Laws of 2003, Chapter 479, effective
September 9, 2003.
Local requirements for minimum lot sizes for farm buildings raises concerns
similar to those involving minimum and maximum building dimensions. A farmer
may be unable to meet a minimum lot size due to the configuration of the land
used for production or lying fallow as part of a conservation reserve program.
The need to be proximate to existing farm roads, a water supply, sewage
disposal and other utilities is also essential. Farm buildings are usually located
on the same property that supports other farm structures. Presumably, minimum
lot size requirements are adopted to prevent over concentration of buildings and
to assure an adequate area to install any necessary utilities. Farm buildings
should be allowed to be sited on the same lot as other agricultural use structures
subject to the provision of adequate water and sewage disposal facilities and
meeting minimum.setbacks between structures.
C. Setbacks
Minimum setbacks from front, back and side yards for farm buildings have not
been viewed as unreasonably restrictive unless a setback distance is unusually
long. Setbacks that coincide with those required for other similar structures
have, in general, been viewed as reasonable.
9116103
A farm operation's barns, storage buildings and other facilities may already be
located within a required setback, or the farm operation may need to locate new
facilities within the setback to meet the farm operation's needs. Also, adjoining
land may consist of vacant land, woodland or farmland. The establishment of
unreasonable setback distances increases the cost of doing business for farmers
because the infrastructure needed to support the operation (e.g., water supply,
utilities and farm roads) is often already located within, and adjacent to, the
farmstead area or existing farm structures. Setbacks can also increase the cost
of, or make it impracticable to construct new structures for the farm operation.
D. Sign Limitations:
Whether or not a limitation on the size and/or number of signs that may be
used to advertise a farm operation is unreasonably restrictive of a farm operation
depends upon the location of the farm and the type of operation. A farmer who is
located on a principally traveled road probably will not need as many signs as
one who is located on a less traveled road and who may need directional signs to
direct the public to the farm. The size of a sign needed may depend on whether
the sign is used to advertise the farm's produce or services (e.g., for a
commercial horse boarding operation) as part of the farm's direct marketing, or
just for directional purposes.
E. Maximum Lot Coverage
Establishing a maximum lot coverage that may be occupied by structures
may be unreasonably restrictive. For example, it may be difficult for horticultural
operations to recoup their investment in the purchase of land if they are not
allowed to more fully utilize a lot/acreage for greenhouses. Farm operations
within an agricultural district should be allowed the maximum use of available
land, consistent with the need to protect the public health or safety. Generally, if
setbacks between buildings are met and adequate space is available for interior
roads, parking areas (where required), and safe operation of vehicles and
equipment, health and safety concerns are minimized.
F. Screening and Buffers
Some municipalities impose buffer requirements, including setbacks where
vegetation, landscaping, a wall or fencing is required to partially or completely
screen adjacent land uses. Often, the buffer area cannot be used or encroached
upon by any activities on the lot. Requirements for buffers or setbacks to graze
animals, construct fences and otherwise use land for agricultural purposes are
generally unreasonably restrictive.
Buffers and associated setbacks may require. farmers to remove land from
production or otherwise remove land from use for the farm operation. The impact
on nursery/greenhouse operations is especially significant since they are often
12
9116103
VAN DEWATER AND VAN DEWATER,LLP
COUNSELORS AT LAW
JOHN B.VAN DEWATER(1892-1968) -MILL&GARDEN STREETS NOEL DECORDOVA,JR.
ROBERT B.VAN DEWATER(1921-1990) P.O.BOX 112 - EDWARD VK CUNNINGIIAJ9,JR.
DAVID A.HAGSTROM POUGHKEEPSIE,NEW YORK 12602 SUSANNA E.BEDELL
JOHN K.GIFFORI) ELIZABETH A.ROOSA
JAMES E.NELSON (845)452-5900 - PETER J.DRANGINIS,JR.
GERARD J.COMATOS FAX(845)452-5848 COUNSEL
RONALD C.BLASS,JR.
REBECCA S.MENSCH E-MAIL ADDRESS:
VANDEWATERLAIV&AOL.COAI -
CHRISTINE H.CUIDO
CYNTHIA S.ROSENZWEIG
May 2 , 2001
rowF9�,s2tvl
Constance 0. Smith, SupervisorORs
20wMiddlebpphnRoadinger Town Hall lN,gppNG/9
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
Vincent Bettina, Councilman, Ward 2
Town of Wappinger Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
Vergilis Stenger Roberts & Pergament
1136 Route 9 .
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
Re : Property of Mario A. Vilardi DMD
Our File No. 10930-001
Dear Su-oervisor Smith, Councilman Bettina and Mr. Roberts :
This letter concerns the property of Dr. Vilardi on
which he is currently constructing a new residence in the Town of
Wappinger.
The property extends from frontage on Baxtertown Road
in the Town of .Fishkill to vacant land which fronts on Kretch
Circle in the Fleetwood Manor Subdivision.
RECEIVED
MAY 17 2001
TOWN CLERK
Constance 0. Smith, Supervisor
Vincent Bettina, Ward Councilman
Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
May 2 , 2001
Page 2
-------------------------
Some time ago, Dr. Vilardi discussed the filing of a
four lot subdivision application with the Zoning or Building
Departments of the Town of Wappinger. A copy of the concept
subdivision plat is provided with the version of this . letter
being submitted to Town Attorney Roberts .
Lot 4 of the proposed subdivision constitutes 56 . 8587
acres, of which approximately 5 acres are located in the Town of
Fishkill . The balance is located in the Town of Wappinger.
At the northeasterly boundary of proposed Lot 4 is a
"proposed road" connecting to existing Kretch Circle which was
established upon development of the Fleetwood Manor Subdivision
consistent with a final plat filed on or about February 3rd, 1961
in the office of the Dutchess County Clerk as filed map #2956 .
I have reviewed the subdivision map for the Fleetwood
Manor Development . It shows the reservation of a 50 foot wide
corridor or stub (hereafter the "corridor" ) extending, for future
road purposes, from Kretch Circle to the lands currently owned by
Dr. Vilardi . The road extension corridor is situate between Lot
1 and Lot 15 on the Fleetwood Manor Subdivision Plat .
In general terms, Dr. Vilardi has been advised by
zoning or building officials of the Town. of Wappinger that his
proposed four lot subdivision, to the extent that it provides for
Constance 0. Smith, Supervisor
Vincent Bettina, Ward Councilman
Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
May 2 , 2001
Page 3
--------------------------
servicing of lot 4 by a proposed road connecting to Kretch
Circle, cannot be processed until and unless our client acquires
title to the proposed road bed, or until and unless some other
arrangements are made to give the Town and/or Dr. Vilardi the
right to enter upon and to improve the corridor for road
purposes .
Title to the Kretch Circle corridor remains in the
parties which developed the Fleetwood Manor Subdivision long ago.
Good faith efforts to discuss the matter with that prior owner,
although unnecessary in retrospect, have not been proven
fruitful .
We have recently been asked to review the situation by
Dr. Vilardi, and to render our opinion as to the best manner to
proceed in the interests of both our client and the Town of
Wappinger.
It is my opinion that the Kretch Circle corridor,
extending between Lots 1 and 15 of the Fleetwood Manor
Subdivision to the lands of Dr. Vilardi., constitutes a "paper
road" shown on a filed subdivision plat, and, as such, the filing
of the plat created a continuing offer to cede that real
property to the Town for road purposes . This conclusion stems
from the provisions of current Section 279 of the Town Law
(formerly § 278 until renumbering in 1992) .
f
Constance O. Smith, Supervisor
Vincent Bettina, Ward Councilman
Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
May 2 , 2001
Page 4
-------------------------
Continuing offers of cession established by statute are
subject to revocation, unless a revocable offer of cession has
been provided by the developer. We are in no position, at
present, to know whether an irrevocable offer of cession was
provided to the Town in the context of the Fleetwood Manor
Subdivision approval, but it is doubtful this occurred back in
1.961 .
It certainly makes sense for the Town to assess the
proposed subdivision in terms of the ability for access to Lot 4
from Kretch Circle . We conclude that the current owner of title
to the corridor has no right to interfere with the Town' s
acceptance of the statutory offer of cession, and the Town should
pass a resolution accepting the offer of cession, and so
notifying the property owner.
There is no need to require Dr. Vilardi to negotiate
with this intransigent property owner, nor is there any need for
the Town to go to the burden and expense of exercising eminent
domain. Indeed, some years ago I litigated a matter in the Town
of Beekman on behalf of private property owners who opposed the
extension of a cul-de-sac which affected their property, even
though the extension was shown on a subdivision map. The Town of
Beekman undertook to condemn land necessary to extend the cul-de-
sac, when in reality the Town need only have sent a letter
accepting the offer of cession created by the filed subdivision
J
Constance 0. Smith, Supervisor
Vincent Bettina, Ward Councilman
Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
May 2 , 2001
Page 5
-------------------------
plat . The eminent domain proceeding was opposed by my client,
the Town eventually prevailed, but the Town wasted significant
money and resources in prosecuting the needless proceeding.
In the event the Town passes a resolution accepting the
offer of cession and so notifies the current property owner of
the corridor, I believe the following batting order is
appropriate :
1 . Upon the exercise of the offer of cession, title
will remain in the underlying property owner, but
the Town will have vested its right to allow entry
upon and development of the corridor for road
purposes;
2 . Dr. Vilardi' s subdivision can proceed forward to
review on its merits;
3 . In the event of approval, and in the event of the
need to improve the corridor for access, Dr.
Vilardi could be expected to bond and to perform
the improvements;
4 . Upon completion, the extended roadway might be
dedicated to the Town of Wappinger.
Constance 0. Smith, Supervisor
Vincent Bettina, Ward Councilman
Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
May 2 , 2001
Page 6
-------------------------
I would like to discuss this proposal further at your
convenience .
Very truly yours,
VAN DEWATER & VAN DEWATER, LLP
By: 4�9/
RONAL C. BLASS, JR.
RCB/lh:n
CC ; Mario A. Vilardi, DMD
K:IWPDOCS%ViSardi,Mario A,DDS104.27.01]tr to Smith Bettina and Robermwpd
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
PLANNING BOARD
DISTRIBUTION
SUBDIVISION- SIGNED RESOLUTION & FILED MAP
FILED MAP##_11071_
PROJECT NAME: VILARDI SUBDIVISION
DATE PREPARED: OCTOBER 10,2000
DISTRIBUTED FOR YOUR RECORDS
RESOLUTION WITH APPROVED PLANS:
X TOWN FILE
N TOWN ENGINEER.
• TOWN PLANNER
N TOWN ASSESSOR
X FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
X HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT
RESOLUTION ONLY:
TOWN CLERK (ORIGINAL):
X RESOLUTION FILL:
• TOWN ATTORNEY
X BUILDING INSPECTOR
X TOWN BOAR
x TOWN SUPERVISOR
X CAG
APPLICANT
X APPLICANT'S ENGINEER I ARCHITECT
RECREA'T'ION
DC DEPT, OF PUBLIC WORKS (COUNTY ROAD)
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION(STATE ROAD)
VILLAGE OR TOWN
FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. David J. Portman, FAicp
Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Howard 1. Reynolds, PE
Rye, New York and Fairfield, Connecticut David H. Stolman, AICP, PP
350 Theodore Fremd Avenue MichaelA. Galante
Rye, New York 10580 Joanne R Meder, AICD
(914) 967-6540 - FAX (914) 967-6615 Daniel K. Wery, AICP
MEMORANDUM
To: Town of Wappinger Planning Board 20H
-Zot4�NG AYM"STRATOR
Date: September 13, 2000 TOS
NM OF WpppINGER
Subject: Vilardi 4-Lot Subdivision -
Resolution of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Approval
As requested, we have prepared the attached revised resolution of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Plat Approval for your review and consideration. The resolution has been
revised to reflect the recently submitted plans and to correctly characterize the nature of the
application.
Daniel K. Wery, AICP
Vice President/Planning
cc: Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., PE
Tatiana Lukianoff, Zoning Administrator
Applicant
Attachment
v:\docs2\500\wappinger\vi lard i_p+f-res_cover2.dsk.doc
Connecticut - (203) 255-3100 email@fpciark.com Long Island (516) 364-4544
www.fpclark.com
VU ARDI 5-LOT SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
5. The Planning Board hereby grants both Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat
Approvals for a 4-lot Subdivision Project as herein defined to the Applicant subject
to the following conditions and modifications which must be satisfied prior to the
signing of the final plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board:
a. The Owner shall endorse a copy of this resolution and submit it to the
Planning Board for its files.
b. The Applicant shall submit the plans to the Dutchess County Health
Department for review and approval and endorsement.
C. The Applicant shall submit a statement signed by the Town's Tax Collector
that all taxes due on the subject property have been paid.
6. Conditional approval of the final plat shall expire one hundred eighty (180) days
from the date of this resolution unless all requirements have been certified as
completed or unless a written request for an extension of Final Subdivision Plat
Approval (not to exceed two (2) ninety (90) day periods) is granted.
7. In accordance with the Town's Schedule of Fees, the Applicant shall be responsible
for the payment of all application review fees incurred by the Planning Board in
review of this Project which are in excess of the application review fees paid by the
Applicants to-date. Such fees shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the notification
to the Applicant that such fees are due. If such fees are not paid within this thirty
(30) day period and an extension therefor has not been granted by the Planning
Board, this resolution shall be rendered null and void. Refunds of any remaining
funds within the escrow account for the applications will not be made until six (6)
months after the filing of the subdivision plat.
8. The Planning Board Chairman shall endorse a copy of this resolution certifying its
correctness. The Applicants shall also sign a copy of this resolution after it has been
initially endorsed by the Chairman acknowledging his receipt of a copy of the
resolution. When all of the conditions set forth in the conditions above have been
satisfied, a copy of the final subdivision plat,revised as necessary, shall be submitted
for endorsement by the Planning Board Chairman, certifying that the plans comply
with the terms of this resolution, at which time, the Chairman shall also endorse this
resolution in the space provided below, certifying that the applicants has complied
with the above conditions of approval and that the Final Plat is authorized for filing
with the County Clerk, Division of Land Records.
4of5
-VILARDI5-LOT SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION OF PRELMENARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
The question of adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call,
which resulted as follows:
Philip J. DiNonno, Chairman Voting:
Guy Gagne Voting:
George Grimshaw Voting:
Hugo Musto Voting:E-�-
William
Parsons Voting: �iu0
June Visconti Voting: aqg
a"^
Robert Walker Voting:
The resolution is hereby duly declared adopted.
Dated: September 18,2000
Wappingers Falls,New York
Philip J. DiTqonno, Chairman Date
Town of Wappinger Planning Board
Mario A. Vilardi, Property Owner Date
The following endorsement hereby confirms that the Applicants have fulfilled all of the
conditions of this resolution of Final Subdivision Plat approval and authorizes the filing of
the Final Subdivision Plat with the County Clerk, Division of Land Records.
- a12'20100
Philip J. DiNonno, Chairman Date
Town of Wappinger Planning Board
v:ldocs215001wappingerlvilardi_p+f sub res.dsk.doc
5 of 5
VILARDI 5-LOT SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
Board, this resolution shall be rendered null and void. Refunds of any remaining
funds within the escrow account for the applications will not be made until six (6)
months after the filing of the subdivision plat.
8. The Planning Board Chairman shall endorse a copy of this resolution certifying its
correctness. The Applicants shall also sign a copy of this resolution after it has been
initially endorsed by the Chairman acknowledging his receipt of a copy of the
resolution. When all of the conditions set forth in the conditions above have been
satisfied, a copy of the final subdivision plat,revised as necessary, shall be submitted
for endorsement by the Planning Board Chairman, certifying that the plans comply
with the terms of this resolution, at which time, the Chairman shall also endorse this
resolution in the space provided below, certifying that the applicants has complied
with the above conditions of approval and that the Final Plat is authorized for filing
with the County Clerk, Division of Land Records.
The question of adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call,
which resulted as follows:
Philip J. DiNonno, Chairman Voting: C"I C
Guy Gagne Voting: 01,
George Grimshaw Voting:
Hugo Musto Voting: A-
William Parsons Voting:
June Visconti Voting:
Robert Walker Voting:
The resolution is hereby duly declared adopted.
Dated: June 19, 200O
Wappingers Falls, New York
Id's
Philip J. DiNonno, Chairman DatZ
Town of Wappinger Planning'Board
Mano ,"Iardi, Property Owner Date,
4 of 5
n W
February 2, 1999
Elaine Snowden
Town of Wappingers
Planning Board
Middlebush Rd.
Wappinger Falls,NY
Dear Elaine,
As per our conversation, I would like to set up a meeting with the Town Beard to discuss
a problem that occurred in front of the Planning Board last year regarding tax lot parcel
#19-615601-288587. As you may recall, I was in front of the Planning Board regarding a
sub division when it was brought to my attention that a 50ft. right of way(which I was
under the impression was owned by the Town of Wappingers), was in fact owned by a
private individual. The title search indicated that this parcel, which was taxed for 30
years, was owned by Gallo Brothers:holding Company. The Gallo brothers were
unaware and were under the impression that this parcel was dedicated to the town for the
subdivision. It was the impression of the previous owner of my property that in exchange
for a water runoff pipe on my property the town was suppose to acquire this land. All
efforts to acquire the 50 ft. runway has failed. I would like to discuss this with the Town
Board to correct or suggest a solution to this problem. Please schedule at date.
Sincerely,
Mar"" A.`' ilardi
Baxtertown Rd.
Wappinger Falls,NY 12.590
(914)896-7965
RECE vED
FEB 0, Z� 1999'
ELAINESNOWOEN
fOWN CLE ,
03/22/99 RGM
The Town Board Meeting for the Town of Wappinger was held on March 22,
1999 at the Town Hall, 20 Middlebush Road, Wappingers Falls, NY.
Supervisor Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Constance Smith, Supervisor
Robert Valdati, Councilman
Vincent Bettina, Councilman
Joseph Ruggiero, Councilman
Joseph Paoloni, Councilman(arrived at 7:32 p.m.)
Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk
Others Present:
Jay Paggi, Engineer to the Town
Al Roberts,Attorney to the Town
Graham Foster, Highway Superintendent
The Supervisor asked all to join in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Regular Meetings of February 22, 1999/March 8,1999,
and Workshop Meeting of March 8, 1999, having previously been forward to
the Board Members, was now placed before them for their consideration.
COUNCILMAN VALDATI moved that the above stated minutes as
presented by the Town Clerk be and they are hereby approved.
Seconded by Mr. Bettina
Motion Unanimously Carried
REPORTS OF OFFICERS
Reports for the month of February were received from the Town Justices,
Supervisor/Comptroller, Receiver of Taxes, Building Inspector, Zoning
Department, Recreation Annual Report and the Supervisors Annual
Financial Report, which was filed with the Town Clerk, Elaine Snowden, on
March 22, 1999.
COUNCILMAN RUGGIERO moved to accept the reports and place them on
file.
Seconded by Mr.Valdati
Motion Unanimously Carried
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS
Correspondence from Dr. Mario Vilardi of Baxtertown Road wishing to meet
with the Board to discuss a problem that occurred last year when he went
before the Planning Board to discuss subdividing his property. It was
brought to his attention that a 50 ft. right of way(which he was under the
impression was owned by the Town of Wappinger), was in fact owned by a
private individual. The title search indicated that this parcel,which went
untaxed for 30 years,was in fact owned by Gallo Brothers Holding Company.
Mr. Gallo was under the impression that this parcel was dedicated to the
1
03/22/99 RGM
town years ago, in exchange for a water runoff pipe on the property. All
efforts to acquire the 50 ft. runway have failed. He is here tonight to get
some input from the board, and perhaps come up with a solution to this
problem.He was wondering if the town could condemn the property, and take
it over, since Mr. Gallo has not paid taxes all these years, and Dr.Vilardi can
not get him to sell. Mr. Roberts explained there is no public benefit to
condemning the land, and we could not spend public funds, no matter what
the cost, and the only purpose here would be to advance your subdivision.
Dr.Vilardi is requesting the town to include the property on the tax rolls so
there is some incentive for Mr.Gallo to believe he does own the property,and
perhaps he can be dealt with. Mr.Gallo is up in years, and he is very
hostile. Discussion followed with the Assessor in attendance.
COUNCILMAN VALDATI moved to authorize the Assessor, Linda Tasadfoy
to investigate further, and advise the town board.
Seconded by Mr.Ruggiero
Motion Unanimously Carried
Dr.Vilardi explained that the spot that he would like to build a house is
beyond the Town of Fishkill line which crosses into Wappinger. All his
services come from the Town of Fishkill. In order to simplify things, he was
wondering if a small section could be annexed to the Town of Fishkill so that
he does not have to deal with variances,because it is landlocked. It has no
road frontage.
COUNCILMAN VALDATI moved to authorize Attorney to the Town, Al
Roberts to prepare a written opinion on annexation.
Seconded by Mr. Bettina
Motion Unanimously Carried
Correspondence from Jean Gunsch, NYSDOT in response to the letter from
Joseph Grogan, dated 9/9/98 concerning the request for a speed limit
reduction on Chelsea Road, CR 92 between Route 9D and the existing 30
MPH speed limit in the hamlet of Chelsea. A review of this roadway was
conducted. As a result,it was found that the majority of the roadway section
is conducive to speeds between 40 and 45 MPH. Consequently, a reduction in
the existing 40 MPH legal limit would not be appropriate. Discussion
followed.
COUNCILMAN BETTINA moved to authorize Supervisor Smith set up a
meeting with the DOT and Mr.Bettina also in attendance,for further
discussion on this matter.
Seconded by Mr.Ruggiero
Motion Unanimously Carried
2
c. C
_ a /
TCq Y Oy
q1glow.
MIVE
"Vi
u� a5m,. � Ne � Q •� � �2. � i 1 P
pyo "
�-,-
�
r
v .e
I�
s ma
i
�65yS }t
I
4
` I -
L _
f
1
oP 0.�