Loading...
UntitledApril 4, 1974 Wappingers Town Board Town Hall Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York Gentlemen: The members of the Cedar Hill -Pine Ridge Civic Association strongly urge that the Town Board repeal the Wappingers Zoning Ordinance Density Bonus, Section 412.02. The object of the Density Bonus was to encourage development of a young community. However, this objective has been met. In recent years, the Town of Wappingers has been subjected to rapid growth, a growth so rapid that public facilities such as schools and roads are taxed beyond capacity. It is time now to restrict the growth of the Town to a more controlled rate. Wappingers Town Board has begun action to limit this growth by repeal of the Zoning Density Bonus as applied to R20 zoning. The job must be completed by repeal of Section 412.02, the Density Bonus applying to R40 areas. The position of the Cedar Hill -Pine Ridge Civic Association is well known to the members of the Town Board. Indeed, three separate petitions, each containing well over 100 signatures, were submitted to you on March 29, 1972, January 3, 1973, and March 20, 1974. Moreover, it is not just our civic association urging repeal of the Density Bonus. Early in 1972, the Zoning Regulations Advisory Committee (ZRAC), consisting of representatives of civic associations throughout the Town, became active After careful and responsible thinking, including consultation with planners from Cornell and the Town's own consultant David P. Clark Associates, ZRAC concluded that the Density Bonus should be repealed. The Town of Wappingers is a charming community in the Hudson Valley. The natural beauty of the rolling, wooded land makes any season here delightful. Please, hear the poeple you represent. Act responsibly to repeal the Density Bonus, Section 412.02; preserve the character of our Town. Endorsed by the Membership Cedar Hill -Pine Ridge Civic Association General Meeting April 4, 1974 RECEIVED APR g 1914 ELAINE H, SNOWDEN TOWN OF WAPPINGER y SUPERVISORS OFFICE MILL STREET WAPPINGERS FALLS, N. Y. 12890 LOUIS D. DIEHL BUPKRVISOR March 28, 1974 Mr. Rudy Lapar Engineer to Town 90 East Main Street Wappingers Falls, New York Dear Rudy: It would appear at this date that on April 8, 1974 the repeal of the 1/2 acre bonus density will take place and receive a favorable vote to repeal the 1/2 acre bonus. From what information I now have I can see no reason why I and the entire Board should not repeal the bonus. Before this meeting on April 8, 1974, I need and the Board should have firm figures on the present status and immediate,future of Wappinger Sewer Improvement #1 showing status of rates and actual assessed valuation related to the district. Namely the following listed questions: 1) If all sewer line and plant construction were to stop where we are right now, what would be the annual cost to a resident of Oakwood Knolls or to those residents able to receive service. 2) If all improvements as approved by Audit and Control were implemented what will be the annual sewer cost to an Oakwood resident, both benefit and O&M? ' 3) Do we presently have approved plans for the expansion of the Oakwood plant and if so what is your estimate of cost? 4) How many homes in addition to those already existing in the Improvement Area can be serviced by Oakwood? 5) How many lots in the Improvement Area presently have approval, preliminary or final, of the Planning Board? 6) Can we serve all residents of the Improvement Area who will be charged a benefit assessment? 7) By what amount would annual charges be reduced if all land in the Improvement Area could be utilized at 1/2 acre density? I \ TOWN OF WAPPINGER SUPERVISORS OFFICE MILL STREET WAPPINGERS FALLS, N. Y. 12590 LOUIS D. DIEHL SUPERVISOR 8) what effect Tri -Municipal system, approved or not approved, have on sewer rates in Improvement Areas, including cost of expanding Oakwood plant to accommodate #1 Improvement Area. 9) Conclusion, total rate costs per home with possible assuming Federal and State funds not available, continued inflation and combination of any and all listed items fail (are not achieved), what maximum rate you can safely predict. I am setting an executive meeting for Thursday, April 4, 1974 at 4:00 P.M. at Town Hall with Board Members and yourself and Mr. Rappleyea and would think it imperative to present this report before this meeting so members could digest it and formulate any possible questions and/or affirm the present direction the Board is prepared to take. Very. truly you A��, Louis D. Diehl Supervisor Town of Wappinger LDA/ml V Y r _i.... TO: dnFtI GL iS F—L-LL(,IVil�G ALVI�S(!,Cy C,, td�ClL RESIDEN �'S �E HILLS the unuersiL,neu, OLIT COLi1iC1I -Pt ore: -; n tL, ti -V-(-, 2-, P't Cl, er, tiiLA a iijcr— torluill be ; iLCE- U C)h i r:C C'I<..-,use-. which uj lows one acre (R-40) zcrliljg to iDe reponEd to 2 aCr(-'. and I L les,- j -f C(�Iit-I-L�J 14� L(r �dlO- S('We is avLiluoie. This iII()i'LLLUriUlIi s"rj, JAla be inst 11(.d to of Urlut.VCiCq',Cct laijo ui;u _sr'l."),a](i u til a I`Ea"�oLublc j;.,ore p-r--cLic,)l zondn; orcjifi-il-ce f-utur( o-rowth with Lt, -"u no i'u-r*UIILI, CU ii1j)1`0 1,11 L)(: I'LUCIE, L)", r(�zomfq,. kyly r(L'I-'j-G(-rtGi�-jj 1) r 0 p (- r f" to uus1n(-,-Is or iyIdLl8trial WiLLULA all W�QbT,('u L�LliO up-or(,V,� u zoning phi los,, "'JJ" Y 1� 0 &1 h -4- 7 r 15, Tlarch OF IT' 02 L PIT"-,'"?", 1110 V. 11 A .1 1, -X-j .) . L-A, 1 , " I F Z, 7 G 7T u 7Z rt ''l4 K Tc�-"VJ. 700�z lr E'llarch 20, !'A'74 WAY TIA U )AHSla . �l it Jai UR 02 WAA !� l 1 A R-40 ZOO -0 1 M zw� 02 fa. ?P GAM. evi. MARCH 20, 1974 We, the undersigned, are in favor of keeping the R-40 zoning in the Town of Wappinger. NAME 1 ........ADDRESS.. i ' ✓ o f 20, 1-'-1174 TR-40 Z,011,1"'I' -1l-T f A V 0' LL", H I ii C F H vi ,r'I "1 LiY G 2 i Lj 1Sii,1J.� iiia 1111 Uil A,- ("WIP I ,iIk 'M.J(rVr 7"0'7 TjT7.-A r7 r t -F, 'Tn THE DUTC DE� 4 To: Town Board fY X PLANNING , r ew york 12601 485-9890 Referral: 74-36 Town of Wappinger Re: Repeal of Section 412.02 of Town Zoning Ordinance The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed the above referral and makes the following findings: 1. The Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance Section 412.02 currently states that 11subject to the approval of the Planning Board in its subdivision review, development in any RD -40 or R-40 districts may take place at the minimum lot size and dimensions permitted in the next less restrictive district, provided that public or community water and sewer facilities systems... are... provided..." 2. it is this Department's understanding that it was not the intent of the con- sultants in the 1963 Master Plan or Zoning Ordinance that the bonus be used unilaterally to increase density above one dwelling unit per acre. 3. The proposal would eliminate the density bonus option so that all future sub- divisions in the R-40 district would be developed at approximately one dwell- ing per acre -- at least until such time as the zoning ordinance is revised later this year to implement the new Town Master Plan. 4. In a referral written by this Department on January 17, 1973 in regard to the same question of the elimination of the density bonus in the R-40 and RD -40 zones, we recommended the Town not to eliminate the bonus until such time as the land use plan, then in progress, was completed; an alternate suggestion of a moratorium on the bonus until the plan could be completed was made. Further we questioned the economic feasibility regarding the one -acre lot and central sewerage, but these remarks were addressed to the small, single subdivision system. This problem is greatly diminished by the much more preferable arcowide sewer system. 5. A new land use plan has now been developed. The consultants, in consultation with various boards and citizen groups, prepared the plan on the basis of community goals and amounts of land needed for various uses for the Town's present and future residents. The locations and densities of these uses were then based on such factors as soil types and wetness, topography of the land, and an attempt to preserve areas of the greatest ecological importance to the Town while still accommodating future growth. Page 2 Zoning Referral 74-36 6. The Town's land use plan calls for the establishment of four densities -- high, medium, low, and conservation -- of residential development with higher densities in a relatively concentric pattern around the urban center of Wappingers Falls; however, the density bonus serves to negate this plan of development by allowing subdivisions in the low density area to be built at medium density. 7. The proposal to eliminate the density bonus would affect property in the eastern part of the Town along with areas in the southwest adjacent to Fishkill and a smaller area in the vicinity of Cedar Hill. These areas are in general proposed for low density in the new Town Master Plan (one density unit per acre) and, therefore, the elimination of the density bonus would be harmonious with that plan. In general the Town Master Plan is also consonant with the County's Concept for Growth. 8. It should be pointed out that the proposed elimination of the bonus affects two areas within the Town Sewer Improvement Area; namely, the Cedar Hill area south of Hopewell Road and a smaller area southwest of Lake Oniad. These areas, however, are characterized by steep slopes and some wetland and would seem appropriately developed at a low density in accordance with the new Town Master Plan. Recommendation The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends that the Town Board base its decision on its own study of the facts with consideration of the above findings. Dated: March 20, 1974 Henry Heissenbuttel, Commissioner Dutchess County Dept. of Planning g�cr.�e�-tea- ErQ�m.e (Mrs.) Caroline F. Raymond Associate Planner Town Board Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, N.Y. Gentlemen: March 18, 1974 The following resolution has been passed by your duly appointed Conservation Advisory Council. To encourage the wise use and sound management of natural resources throughout the Town of Wappinger; to preserve the integrity, stability, and rustic beauty of the community; to safeguard the water table we all depend on; to protect our streams and ponds from pollution; to maintain a healthy relationship between people and their environment; to avoid unnecessary population congestion and needless overcrowding of the land; residents; and to enhance the quality of life for area the Conservation Advisory Council urges the Town Board to eliminate the density bonus by deleting section 412.02 of the Zoning Ordinance. Charles Cortellino Chairman, Wappinger Conservation Advisory Council < Joseph Incoronato, member-Wappinger Conser. Advisory Council March 18, 1974 To The Members of The Town hoard of Tappingers We would like to see the repeal of the density bonus in our town. Why should time and money be spent to zone land only to have a developer come along and get the zoning changed to half the amount of land per residence? They should expect to provide adequate water and sewage for their developments without any, additional incentive such as this bonus. The bonus benefits the developer, in that he can gain twice the dollar return from hi.s investment. The Town will be the loser in the long run with an over- population situation causing an insufficient water and sewage treatment condition years before the proposed town water and sewer systems are completed and ready for use. Evidence of some of this problem can be viewed at developed areas such as Royal Ridge Estates. Further evidence can be gained by riding by the sewer treatment plant near Rt 376 on a warm day in an adjoining township. Does the Town want this type of thing to happen throughout the township? More of the natural atmosphere should be preserved in the town at whatever cost is necessary. Thanks for the public hearing and an oppurtunity to hear the taxpayers." / l . Thi J. Di sbrow Family /' PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12390 TEL. 297.6256 March 20, 1974 Town Board Town of Wappinger Mill Street Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 RE: Proposed Ordinance on the Repeal of Section 412.02 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. Gentlemen: At the March 18th, 1974 meeting, the Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger took the following action on your request for their recommendation on the repeal of Section 412.02 of the Zoning Ordinance. A motion was made by Mr. Allen B. Cooke to recommend to the Town Board that Section 412.02 of the Zoning Ordinance be repealed. The motion was seconded by Mr. James V. Porter and unanimously carried by those members present. Allen B. Cooke - aye Donald J. Keller - aye Dr. Harvey Miller - absent James Mills - aye br James V. Porter - aye Robert A. Steinhaus - aye Arthur J. Walker - aye Respectfully yours, (Mrs.) Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board CC: Planning Board Members Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk Pine Ridi-e [)rive npp i npe rs ra 1 Is, March 11, 1974 /Town Board Town of Wappinger ,tfi 11 Street '0 app i ngers falls, t% Y. 125 10 Gentlemen, N.Y. 125,20 ELAINE i lie Zoning PeFu 1 at ions Advisory Council strongly er)Corses the motion before the Town Eoard to repeal the "DensIty [onus" feature of our present zoning ordinance. Our reasons for rccormending repeal of this feature are reflected in the new !faster flan adopted i,y the Planninp Coard. 1. There Is no concept of a density hems it' the rteVl I'aster Plan; this plan defines a variety of zoning; districts whereas the density bonus has the o1wosito effect c reducing; R-40 and R-20 districts to ^-20. 2. Curing the interim period, until the raster Plan is supported by a revised zoning ordinance, the tot,,n should attelilpt to avoid approving; nets eevelopments which are contrary to this plan, i'epea1 of the Pens ty PonUS would be a significant step in that direction. 3. The Density Bonus is s 1rr,l y ot!t-dated. It is not selective in that it encourages hifrher density development anywhere in the tmm.. reg-ardIess of the difficulty in providing central services on a town or district basis. 4. The new Blaster centers" concept providing and accordingly, the Density [onus has relief. the most sewer and water subdivisions based chooses to build. Plan is Fased uron the "populatir)n which )Treatly reduces the cr)st of maintaining central services; tax burden will be recauced. The not and can not accomplish this tax effective way of reducing the cost of districts is to avoid approvIns- upon this bonus wherever a developer CC. PLItchess County Planninp Planning board, Town of Respectfully smi tted, Marren L. Strohr,, Cha i rrman Zoning Ref-ulatIons Advisory Council f epartr?ent llappitire r We the undersigned, residents of the Town of Wappingers, re4uest that the Town Board repeal the density bonus clause. pro'6i�- _/ ' `` �(r/ V`'t�-'�-'r'`'�--.- �`" ��,�{,.:L,tre 7,it.'' L,/i.�'" `- 1v� YYc-�'-Y� �� L ''�,✓ ` / ; � v%"��' i..�.-C �� / �� �/ '% 'Yet e Z14 W F , SItAl 4z le, L2 74� 4 r z 147�' 14"1, V -lo I 17 t—,x, Z� 't"' Royal Ridge Civic Assoc., Inc. Costa Adamakis 35 Top O'Hill Road Wappingers Falls, N. Y. 12590 Town Board Dear Sirs: I would like to thank you for the assistance and moral support which you have shown in the past toward our community at Royal Ridge. However, since our local problems have diminished in magnitude at present, our Civic Association had the time and energy for a closer look at various aspects of life and future development of our town as a whole. There were lengthy discussions in our general meetings as well as our executive board meetings and we came to the conclusion that as a start we should participate in any and all activities that the Town Board may originate. Representatives of our Association are thus members of the Zoning Regulations Advisory Council and I am happy to say that the recommendations of ZRAC have pleased the majority of our membership. The Density Bonus Clause recommendation in particular has the full support of our Civic Association, and I was instructed to so inform you in our executive board meeting held on February 27th. Please feel free to call on us, in any activity that our par- ticipation may help our town. Thank you very much. Costa Adamakis President RFCEIV&;� MAR 14 1973 ELAINE N, SNOWDEN RUDOLPH E. LAPAR, P.E,,P.C. Consulting Engineers Home: ALL ANGELS HILL ROAD WAPPINGERS FALLS, N.Y. 12590 Phone: 297-3935 Mr. Louis D. Diehl, Supervisor Town of Wappinger Town Hall - Mill Street Wappingers Falls, N. Y. 12590 Dear Mr. Diehl: Main Office: 90 EAST MAIN STREET WAPPINGERS FALLS, N.Y. 12590 Phone: 297-9365 April 5, 1974 Re: Your Letter of March 28, 1974 Relative to the Status of Wappinger Sewer Improvement #1 and the Bonus Density I will try to answer the questions you posed in the above letter but, to be honest with you, a detailed answer would probably take about one month and would include at least two meetings with the Board and the Attorney to get legal interpretations and Board policy, Question #1 The present plant capacity is 74,000 gallons and the approximate usage is 32,000 gallons. That leaves a usable capacity of 42,000 gallons which could probably service 140 homes. Before costs can be allocated it must be decided if only the residents capable of receiving service will be charged, or whether we should also charge those people who will use it in the future, or the District as a whole. It would certainly be advantageous to the District and to the Wappingers Central School District to have Ketcham High School tie-in. Do we do this now or later? Question #2 The maximum anticipated expenditure by the Town was estimated at $2,900,000 even though the Bond Authorization was $3,903,320. Our most recent estimates indicate that our total cost could reach $3,300,000 due to the inflationary rise but even more so, to the stringent safety rules in force by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970). Mr. Louis D. Diehl -2- April 5, 1974 Supervisor r Town of Wappinger We have been informed by reliable sources to expect our trenching items to be almost triple of what they were under Contract ##1. Based on the information contained in our original report the benefit cost at an interest rate of 6% would be $218.87. If we add an approximate cost of $20/year for O & M, we obtain a total charge of approximately $240/year per unit. If we can increase the units by 100, we reduce the cost to approximately $214 per year. If we increase the units by 200, we reduce the cost to approximately $194 per year. If we increase the units by 300, we reduce the cost to approximately $179 per year. Question #3 We have submitted plans on the expansion of the Oakwood Knolls Sewage Treatment Plant to the Dutchess County Health Department and have received our review sheet. Formal approval should be obtained by the first of May. We should receive bids by the first of May and our estimate is between $400,000 and $600,000, depending on what portions of the plant we will not construct due to the implementation of the Tri -Municipal Sewer District. Question #p4 If we figure a 203,000 gallon plant and assume that each house will contribute 300 gallons per day, then we can service approxi- mately 677 houses. Houses or single lots in April 1971 were 493. Therefore, ap- proximately 184 houses,outside of those already existing, could be served. If we could reduce the use to 250 gallons per house, which is more than the use in Watch Hill Section, then we could supply 812 homes and could have an additional 319 homes. If we assume 2,000 gallons per school and an equal amount for the industrial property, then we could still have room for 294 homes. • Mr. Louis D. Diehl Supervisor Town of Wappinger -3- April 5, 1974 Question #5 The following lots have been approved in the Improvement Area: Final Development Approved Lots Esquisite Land Develop.Corp. 5 lots Spook Hill Estates 80 lots Brookvale (mostly R-20 area) Hil-N-Dale (all R-40 area using 412.02) William Lisofsky (R-20) Pondview (R-20) Total Lots 85 lots Preliimiary Approved Lots 150 lots 143 lots 76 lots 100 lots 469 lots Question #6 Yes.(With the exception of a large parcel off Widmer Road of some 128 acres) as long as development is controlled for the next 5 years. Question #7 Unfortunately we do not have the capacity in the Plant to utilize the down -zoning to 2 acre. However, if we could service the ad- ditional houses in the Plant (it should be noted that the lines have adequate capacity) the cost per home owner, if all R-40 was developed as R-20, would be an approximate reduction of some $72/house or unit per year. Question #8 The cost of the Tri -Municipal Sewer System should increase the cost to the home owner in Wappinger #1 to approximately $30/year (this figure is unverified at this writing but will be confirmed or adjusted by May 1, 1974). However, the additional units which can then be accommodated should greatly reduce the overall Improve- ment Area costs as can be seen by the previously answered questions. Question #9 Maximum rate predicted in Question #2. REL: ecw Very:r ly yours,] Rudolp E. Lapar, P.E.