Loading...
UntitledTo: Town Board Referral: 72-309 and 73-8 Town of Wappinger Re: Zoning Amendment to Repeal Section 412.02 The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed the proposal to delete Section 412.02 from the Town Zoning Ordinance within the framework of General Municipal Law and makes the following findings: 1) Section 412.02 currently permits development in RD -40 and R-40 districts to take place at the minimum lot size and dimensions permitted in the next less restrictive district providing public or community sewer an& water systems are provided. 2) The provision allows an increase in density to a point where installation of central utilities is feasible. Feasibility of such installations at a density of one home per acre is highly marginal. On the other hand, in most soil areas development at a one -acre density leads almost Inescapably to septic tank seepage and ground water (and, thus, well) pollution. 3) The density required to ensure pure water and efficiently operating septic tanks would normally be significantly lower than one acre. 4) The proposed repeal does not appear related to soil characteristics and suitability for sewage effluent disposal. Nor does the proposal appear related to the short or long term needs of the Town. 5) The Town is currently in the process of revision of its Master Plan in conjunction with other Southern Dutchess communities. The con- sultant, Frederick P. Clark Associates, expects to have a land use plan completed by late Spring. In light of this fact it would seem preferable for the Town Hoard to postpone as drastic an action as repeal until the land use plan is completed. 6) Under the circumstances, the Town may want to consider a moratorium on the density bonus provision until a certain date but leave the provision- in the ordinance. This technique has been used success- fully by many communities and in this case might be more defensible legally. Page 2 Referral 4.2-309 & 73-8 Recommendation The Dutchess County Department of Planning, based on its study the above proposal, recommends against repeal of Section 412.02 Zoning Ordinance but would not object to a limited moratorium. Dated: January 17, 1973 Henry Heissenbuttel, Commissioner Dutchess County Dept. of Planning and findings of of the Wappinger v(� November 1, 1972 Memorandum to: Town Board - Town of Wappinger Subject: Recommendation of the Zoning Regulations Advisory Council The Zoning Regulations Advisory Council, at its regular meeting on October 18, 1972, voted unanimously to present the attached recommendation to the Town Board. The membership, representing ten different communities in the town, is concerned about the rapid growth rate (117, annually) in town population and the im- pact of this growth upon both the environment and residential character of the town and upon the road, school, sewer and water facilities that will be required to support this growth. Accordingly, the Council recommends the immediate repeal of the "density bonus" provision of the zoning ordinance as a means of encouraging an orderly growth rate while a more complete set of recommendations is being formulated. It is our objective to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations relating to the quality, variety, and quantity of development in the town, both residential and commercial. Because it will take considerable time before all this can be accomplished and eventually acted upon, it is felt by the Council that protection from overly rapid development is required now in the interim time period. It is ap- parent that we no longer need to encourage development in the town and that a water improvement district, and extensions thereto, will substantially reduce the cost to developers of providing centralized facilities. The Council is aware of the Board's concern in this area, as indi- cated by its recent action in removing applicability of the density bonus provision to R20/RD20 areas. Since two-thirds of the town residential area is zoned R40/RD40 and hence still subject to this provision, we respectfully request your attention to this urgent matter. W. B. Strohm - Chairman Elect Zoning Regulations Advisory Council Town of Wappinger cc: Planning Board Chairman RECEIVED Attachment 1972 164 1,. j1 j?V ELAINE H. SNOWDER Ir Recommendation of October 18, 1972 It is recommended that Section 412.02 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 29, 1963, be repealed in its entirety. RECEIV�p FLARIE N, 5NDWDE;1 January 3, 1973 Dorothy Lane Wappingers Falls, New York Mr. Louis Diehl Supervisor, Town of Wappinger Wappingers Falls, New York Dear Mr. Diehl: I am forwarding to you and the Town Board, petitions which request that the Town Board repeal the Density Bonus, section 412. 02, of the Zoning Ordiance. These petitions contain 127 signatures of members of the Cedar Hill -Pine Ridge Civic Association. Our membership feels that development in the Town of Wappinger should no longer be encouraged by means of down grading one acre zoned property to half acre. The Cedar Hill -Pine Ridge Civic Association has also asked that the Town Planning Board stop final subdivision approvals which make use of the Density Bonus until the Town Board has had opportunity to consider our request. Please contact me if additional information is required or if I can be of assistance to you. E. J ef�r ey Be rg President, Cedar Hill -Pine Ridge Civic Association cc: Dr. R. Y. Heisler, Chairman, Town Planning Board Mr. W. B. Strohm, Chairman, Zoning Regulations Advisory Council RECEIVED ELAINE H, SNOWDEN PETITION OF THE CEDAR HILL - PINE RIDGE CIVIC ASSOCIATION We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Wappinger living in the area served by this association, do hereby petition the Town Board to repeal completely the "Density Bonus" provision (section 412.02) of the Zoning Ordinance. We feel that, because of the very rapid growth experienced in the town, it is no longer necessary to encourage subdivision development; further we do not wish to have one acre zoned property down graded to half acre zoning to encourage such development. PETITION OF THE CEDAR HILL PINE RIDGE CIVIC ASSOCIATION We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Wappinger living in the area served by this association, do hereby petition the Town Board to repeal completely the 'Density Bonus" provision (section 412. 02) of the Zoning Ordinance. We feel that, because of the very rapid growth experienced in the town., it is no longer necessary to encourage subdivision development; further we do not wish to have one acre zoned property down graded to half acre zoning to encourage such development. r Date % / / �� i 1- PETITION OF THE CEDAR HILL PINE RIDGE CIVIC ASSOCIATION We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Wappinger living in the area served by this association, do hereby petition the Town Board to repeal completely the "Density Bonus" provision (section 412. 02) of the Zoning Ordinance. We feel that, because of the very rapid growth experienced in the town, it is no longer necessary to encourage subdivision development; further we do not wish to have one acre zoned property down graded to half acre zoning to encourage such development. Date—,. /Z'512 z ---- PETITION OF THE CEDAR HILL - PINE RIDGE CIVIC ASSOCIATION We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Wappinger living in the area served by this association, do hereby petition the Town Board to repeal completely the 'Density Bonus" provision (section 412.02) of the Zoning Ordinance. We feel that, because of the very rapid growth experienced in the town, it is no longer necessary to encourage subdivision development; further we do not wish to have one acre zoned property down graded to half acre zoning to encourage such development. Date PETITION OF THE CEDAR HILL - PINE RIDGE CIVIC ASSOCIATION We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Wappinger living in the area served by this association, do hereby petition the Town Board to repeal completely the "Density Bonus" provision (section 412.02) of the Zoning Ordinance. We feel that, because of the very rapid growth experienced in the town, it is no longer necessary to encourage subdivision development; further we do not wish to have one acre zoned property down graded to half acre zoning to encourage such development. Date �� S 7 �• PETITION OF THE CEDAR HILL - PINE RIDGE CIVIC ASSOCIATION We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Wappinger living in the area served by this association, do hereby petition the Town Board to repeal completely the 'Density Bonus" provision (section 412.02) of the Zoning Ordinance. We feel that, because of the very rapid growth experienced in the town, it is no longer necessary to encourage subdivision development; further we do not wish to have one acre zoned property down graded to half acre zoning to encourage such development. Date Ills 1 1)L -- I �1 i-- PETITION OF THE CEDAR. HILL PINE RIDGE CIVIC ASSOCIATION We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Wappinger living in the area served by this association, do hereby petition the Town Board to repeal completely the 'Density Bonus" provision (section 412.02) of the Zoning Ordinance. We feel that, because of the very rapid growth experienced in the town, it is no longer necessary to encourage subdivision development; further we do not wish to have one acre zoned property down graded to half acre zoning to encourage such development. Date t I S 7 �— y W PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-9941 June 8, 1971 Town Board Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York RE: Your letter dated May 27, 1971. Gentlemen: In regard to the above mentioned letter solicting our recommendations to an amendment of Section 412.02 of the Zoning Ordinance, this amendment as written is not clear to us. If we interpret it correctly, it seems to mean that no lot sizes or dimensions are permitted which are less restrictive than those shown in R20. Is this your intent? Is it your intent to eliminate averaging in this section and if so, how does it tie in to Section 412.01? We would appreciate clarification in this matter at your earliest possible convenience, in as much as several cases pending before the Planning Board may be affected by this amendment. RYH:bg Yours truly, Dr. Robert Y. Heislef,, Chairman Town of Wappinger Planning Board RECEIVED 1971 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN To: Town Board Referral: 71-133 Town of Wappinger Re: Amendment of Section 412.02 of Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed subject referral within the framework of General Municipal Law (Article 128, Sections 239-1 and 239-m) and finds the decision in this matter primarily involves matters of local concern. The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends the de- cision be based upon local study of the facts in the case. The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base its decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or procedures enumerated in subject zoning action. Dated: Jun 1971 my He' s buttel, Commissioner utches County Dept, of Planning RECEIVED J U! 111t, ` 1971 ELAINE N. SNOWDEN Town Board Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, Gentlemen: PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS, NEW YORK 12390 T«. 297.X 6256 January 4, 1973 New York 12590 Regarding your letter dated December 18, 1972 concerning the repeal of Section 412.02, the Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger makes the following recommendation. The Planning Board recommends that Section 412.02 be repealed on the basis that Town sewer and water are now available and the Board also felt clustering and the proposed Planned Unit Development amendment would allow the developer flexibility in developing the land in a manner somewhat similar to what is allowed by Section 412.02. The Planning Board would like to be made aware of whatever action may be taken on this proposal. Furthermore, the Board needs clarification on just what effect if any your action on this proposal will have on any application presently before the Board. Specifically, the Board would like to know whether an application which has not yet received preliminary approval can be considered under Section 412.02. Respectfully yours, '7 i (miss) /Betty -Ann Geoghegan, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board bg cc: Susan J. Pike, Zoning Administrator Allan E. Rappleyea, Attorney to the Town Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk 7,3 PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-9941 April 4, 1972 Town Board Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Gentlemen: Regarding your letter of May 27, 1971 requesting the recommendation of the Planning Board on the proposed amendment to Section 412.02 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Board made the following recommendation. Mr. Einar L. Chrystie made a motion to recommend the adoption of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, with a stipulation that the amendment have no affect on subdivisions in the Town of Wappinger which presently have preliminary subdivision approval; this motion was seconded by Mr. Arthur J. Walker. Mr. Einar L. Chrystie, Dr. Robert Y. Heisler, Mr. Donald J. Keller, Mr. Robert A. Steinhaus and Mr. Arthur J. Walker voted in favor of the proposed amendment. Dr. Harvey Miller was opposed. Respectfully yours, Bet -Ann Geoghegan,"Secreta` ry Town of Wappinger Planning Board ALLAN E. RAPPLEYEA ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW 8 LAFAYETTE PLACE POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK 12601 TELEPHONE 434-0503 May 24, 1971 Town Board Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Re: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Town of Wappinger Gentlemen: I prepared, at the request of Councilman Clausen, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to the Town of Wappinger. This amendment provides, in general, that the lot sizes may be diminished in the event public or community water or sewer systems are installed in subdivisions, provided that the property was in the R-40 or RD -40 classification. In fact, it would eliminate the provision which would permit property in the R-20 and RD -20 zone to be divided into lots of XD00 square feet in the event of the installation of pub- lic or community water. This ordinance must be referred to the Town of Wappinger and County Planning Board and the towns adjoining the Town of Wappinger. Thereafter a public hearing must be conducted. Very truly yours, ALLAN E. RAPP EYEA� AER: ah