1989-10-23 PH1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN BOARD TOWN OF WAPPINGER
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
PUBLIC HEARING IN REFERENCE TO
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN
OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE
NOT PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
X
October 23, 1989
Ketcham High School
Wappingers, New York
7:45 p.m.
TOWN BOARD
SUPERVISOR IRENE PAINO
COUNCILMAN ROBERT VALDATI
COUNCILWOMAN CONSTANCE SMITH
COUNCILMAN VINCENT FARINA
COUNCILMAN DAVID REIS
RAYMOND ARNOLD, AICP
Consulting Town Planner
TOM WOODS, ESQ.
Town Attorney
HERBERT LEVENSON
Zoning Administrator
ELAINE SNOWDEN
Town Clerk
GLADYS RUIT
Deputy Town Clerk
Robin E. DiMichele
Senior Court Reporter
State of New York
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
2 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Good evening. As you're
3 probably well aware, the purpose of this evening's
4 meeting is a public hearing on the proposed zoning
5
ordinance regulations and amendments.
6 Before we start this evening one of our
7 councilman wanted to make a comment, Robert
8 Valdati.
9 MR. VALDATI: Good evening. It has come to
10 my attention that someone has perpetrated a grave
11 injustice on our residents in the Town. A portion
12 of the Town has received letters or leaflets which
13 really created high anxiety among our residents.
14 It had to do with tonight's proceedings. It also
15 intimated that Armageddon would occur if tonight
16 went through with the amendments. It mentions Ms.
17 Smith and myself as contact people, and it was not
18 signed, and if the person who wrote it is here I
19 would like them to explain it to the residents. If
20 not, then if you know who has done this, please
21 contact me. Thank you.
22 SUPERVISOR PAINO: As I mentioned earlier, if
23 you wish to speak this evening, please sign in, if
24 you haven't done so already. Herb, if you have any
25 more signatures back there, please bring them
21
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 3
2 forward because we will be calling upon each
3 individual. When you are called upon, please come
4 ! forward and you can use the PA system here so
5 everybody can hear what your comments are.
6 We have had a public hearing on this once
7 before, some months ago.
8 The zoning ordinance amendments and map that
9 we have before us this evening are the work of the
10 Town Board, or at least a portion of the Town
11 Board, the entire Zoning Board of Appeals, and the
12 entire Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger.
13 Now, it's come to our attention over the past
14 few days that there are some situations in the map
15 that we have for the proposed zoning that should be
16 changed. Also, with one of the new districts that
17 ! we are proposing, the "0" district for office,
18 there is a minimum requirement stipulated in there
19 for office use of 2500 square foot, and apparently
20
that was in error. That 2500 square foot was
21 supposed to be related only to the retail use, so
22 if any of you here have concerns on that we will
23 be-- I will be making a recommendation tonight to
24 : the Town Board based on some changes that we have
25 to make as far as that is concerned, and also to
1
2
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
some of the areas on the map, specifically the
3 Route 9 corridor, that some of the areas there and
4 their designation have to be changed. With those
5 two items in mind, plus the fact that just this
6 evening we have received comments from the Dutchess
7 County Planning Department, they only dropped off
8 their comments to my house about a quarter to seven
9 this evening, I would make a recommendation to the
10 Town Board that we table any vote on it later on
11 , this evening during a special meeting that we have
12 scheduled.
13 Without further ado I would like to start the
14 1 public hearing.
15 We have a number of people here. Once again,
16 if you care to address the Town Board on this, I
17 will call your name. Please come forward, state
18 your name once again and your address, and if you
19 are representing somebody, state that also. Make
20 your comments brief and concise. We are looking
21 for some constructive comments as far as this
22 zoning is concerned, because we will be looking at
23 the comments that come in to us this evening.
24 We have several letters that we have received
25 over the past week or two. We'll be taking a look
2
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
2 at those and making some changes in the very near
3 future and reintroducing the map and reintroducing
4 the amendments.
5 So, once again, you'll have an opportunity to
6 speak once. Please keep it concise and to the
7 point, and hopefully your comments will be
8 constructive. Thank you.
9 I'd like to call the special public hearing
10 to order.
11 MRS. SNOWDEN: Mr. Farina?
12 COUNCILMAN FARINA: Here.
13 j MRS. SNOWDEN: Mr. Reis?
14 (No Response)
15 ' MRS. SNOWDEN: Mrs. Smith?
16 COUNCILWOMAN SMITH: Here.
17 MRS. SNOWDEN: Mr. Valdati?
18 COUNCILMAN VALDATI: Here.
19 MRS. SNOWDEN: Mrs. Paino?
20 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Here.
21 MRS. SNOWDEN: All present, except Mr. Reis.
22 I would like to offer at this time the
23 affidavits of posting and publication for the
24 record, and I would also like to acknowledge the
25
fact that this has been sent to the Towns of East
5
2
3
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance-
Fishkill, Fishkill, LaGrange, Poughkeepsie, the
Village of Wappingers Falls, the Town of Newburgh,
4 the Orange County Legislature, the Dutchess County
5 Clerk, the Clerk to the Dutchess County
6 Legislature, the Town of Wappinger's Planning Board
7 and the Dutchess County Department of Planning.
8 We have had a response from the Town of
9 Wappinger's Planning Board in the positive,
10 indicating that the Town of Wappinger's Planning
11 ! Board recommends, on a majority of the vote, that
12 this be adopted.
13 We have also had some correspondence from
14 various people in the community. I won't read the
15 correspondence, but I want them made part-- they
will be made part of the record and attached to the
17 transcript of the hearing tonight. Letters that
18 were received today, and the Board has not had a
16
19
chance, I don't believe, to read them because they
20 were just delivered to them tonight, is Donald
21 Cappillino for Kettle Associates. He requests to
22 zone property on Route 9 and Fowlerhouse Road
23 office and not R-20. Harold Reilly for Hans Weber
24 requests property on Route 9 be left as zoned.
25 Proposed zoning to office would make it
2
4
6
7
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
non -conforming. Three, Michael Kelly, District
Agent for Northwestern Mutual Life, opposed to
proposed minimum square footage for office zone.
Monteleone for Mr. Hartman. Vic Owens is opposed
to proposed zoning for his property, and Betty Ann
Russ, opposed to rezoning her property from R-20 to
8 R-40, and Mr. William Lavery for William Hammond
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
also expresses an opposition to the proposed square
footage increase.
Letters that the Board has received in the
past, and again will be attached to, and made part
of this hearing, were from Mr. Curtis Rymer,
William H. Greer, William Segur, and Concetta
Olivieri, and we had one telephone call today, the
woman is not able to make it, Ann Aquinetta from 10
Vorndarn Drive (Phonetic) and she is in favor of
several of the changes. She's in favor of
increasing the size of the lots for zoning, to get
rid of a lot of cluster houses. Two, natural
areas, buffer areas, and three, stop development on
Route 9 and leave the wetlands and no more
development. We are overextending ourselves on
24 plazas. That-- oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Thomas Perna.
25 Those are the correspondences that have come in to
2
4
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
the Town Hall and will be made part of the record.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you, Elaine.
SPECTATOR: Excuse me. There was a letter we
5 sent in from George W. Segur.
6 MRS. SNOWDEN: I mentioned George W. Segur.
7 SPECTATOR: You said William.
8 MRS. SNOWDEN: I beg your pardon, it was
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
George W. Segur, apologies. I was reading the one
above it.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Gentleman in the back
there.
SPECTATOR: I'd like to ask the Board a
question on procedure for tonight. I hope it
doesn't happen, but if the Board needs extended
time, does it have a time limit for tonight's
meeting?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: What I have asked is that
each individual, first of all, sign the sheet if
they wish to speak. When their name is called, to
21 please proceed up to the microphone, make their
22 comments as concise as possible, and each
23 individual will be allowed to speak once.
24 SPECTATOR: Do we have a time limit for this
25 hearing? Supposing you run over?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 9
SUPERVISOR PAINO: You mean each individual?
SPECTATOR: Whatever the chair desires. Does
it propose to stay here until it gets done tonight
or will it postpone and go in to tomorrow night if
need be? What's the attitude of the Board about
the time?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: We'll wait and see how
long it transpires. I say to keep your comments to
three minutes or under for each individual.
SPECTATOR: Could you read what the Dutchess
County Planning Department wrote about the plan?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Well, it's a lengthy
document. It will become part of the minutes. If
you want, I can read off the last several items
which is really the bottom line, so to speak.
That's their recommendations.
"(1) Removal of commercial retail and other
non office uses from uses in the office zone.
(2) Elimination of those areas of highway
business zoning along the west side of Route 9 that
affect the Greenfly Swamp.
(3) A significant reduction in the length of
the general business on the south side of New
25 Hackensack Road near its intersection with All
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
Angels Hill Road.
(4) Elimination of all hamlet business
zoning east of Route 82 and within the floodplain
of the Sprout Creek and the hamlet of
Schwartoutville.
(5) Inclusion of zoning provisions to deal
effectively with the floodprone areas.
(6) Removal of highway business uses such as
automobile dealerships from the neighborhood
business district.
(7) Creation of a district for high density
housing, or creation of affordable housing or
amendments of the PUD to allow at least 20 percent
density bonus for the provisions of affordable
housing.
(8) Relaxation of standards for conversions
of existing dwellings.
(9) Inclusion of a PUD or use of other
performance zoning techniques on the Myers Corners
site designated in the comprehensive plan as mixed
office retail. The site is located on the north
side of Myers Corners Road west of its intersection
with All Angels Hill Road."
Most of the comments are restatements of
101
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 11
2 earlier comments. Okay.
3 The first individual that I have on the list,
4 I believe, is Richard Whitehill.
5 MR. MITCHELL: Mitchell. My name is Richard
6 Mitchell; I'm an attorney with McCabe and Mack, 63
7 Washington Street, in Poughkeepsie. I'm speaking
8 here tonight on behalf of two clients, Beverly
9 Cantor and Morris Erbesh who both own property in
10 the Route 9 corridor between Fowlerhouse Road and
11 South Fowlerhouse Road.
12 Could I ask a question before I start? You
13 said there were going to be some changes in the
14 Route 9 corridor. Could we hear what those are
15 going to be? It might make it easier for those of
16 us to address if there were going to be a change of
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
something if it affects the property we're speaking
on.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: We'll have to take a look
at each individual one. Like I said, after the
comments tonight we'll go over everything.
MR. MITCHELL: So, we won't know those in
advance then?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Okay. Well, perhaps Ray
25 can address, answer some of those questions for
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 12
2 you. If you would like to hold off on your
3 comments and be seated for a moment.
4 MR. MITCHELL: All right.
5 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Ray, perhaps you can go
6 over some of the zones in general, but in a very
7 short form.
8 MR. ARNOLD: Actually, tonight's meeting is
9 a-- Just going back a little bit, is an outgrowth
10 of the Growth Management Committee and their
11 involvement with the Town plan and the effectuation
12 of that plan by the Town Board through the zoning
13 i ordinance. The Town Planning Board in August of
14 '88 adopted a comprehensive plan, revising the
15 original comprehensive plan, and that comprehensive
16 plan is shown on that middle map there. The staff
17 was charged with detailing a zoning plan to conform
18 to that particular plan. We came up with an
19 initial plan in January and this was discussed with
20 the Growth Management Committee, as the Supervisor
21 said, which consisted of the Town Board, the
22 Planning Board, and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
23 That initial -- That zoning plan was the subject of
24 a hearing on May llth at which point there were
25 major comments and a major review was undertaken.
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 ,
17
18
19
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
There were seven major comments from Dutchess
County.
All of the County concerns and all of the
letters that we received with that particular
public hearing were reviewed by the Growth
Management Committee. That review is reflected in
the map that's shown to my right at this point in
time. During that review, after the last zoning
map, we did review the old regulations and we
remapped areas which were previously shown to "H",
"HB". We remapped them to "0", and we republished
the map which is the map here.
What has transpired is that we've gotten an
indication that the remapping of the "0" district
should have been undertaken with a view towards not
making non -conforming existing highway business
use, or existing, the majority of existing uses in
the "0" district, so what we would intend to do is
13
20 review the Route 9 corridor in terms of what is the
21 current land use and how does that comply with the
22 "0" regulation or the "HB" regulation.
23 A little background with respect to both of
24 those regulations might put something in
25 perspective. The major differences are the types
1
2
3
4
5
6
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 14
of uses. The "0" district was designed to reduce
the retail thrust along Route 9 and replace it with
an office thrust. The major difference between the
two, the "HB" and the "0" district is that the "0"
district requires a lot size of one acre, the "HB"
7 requires a lot size of two acres. The map that's
8 before you here does not differentiate between "HB"
9 1A and "HB" 2A. All of the "HB" districts will be
10 kept at two acres. We intend, therefore, to review
11 that Route 9 corridor as it relates to the "0"
12 ' district and how the "0" district is impacted by
13 the existing development.
14 With the type of use that the gentleman just
15 talked about right now, I believe that was one of
16 the questions that was in a letter at the previous
17 meeting and the Board has addressed that. If it is
18 not shown as changed from the original request from
19 the people it is because the Growth Management
20 Committee thought it proper to leave it the way the
21 map has shown it.
22 There are two other areas which are wrong on
23 the map. One is the Inter -City Tire area and the
24 other is the area which is proposed for Mitsubishi.
25 We designed, or we mapped the commercial or the
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 15
2 "HB" or the "0" district to leave both of them out.
3 That was an error on our part. They will be put
4 back in essentially the way that the original
5 zoning plan has it shown.
6 I think that's basically what I have to say
7 with respect to the "0" and the "HB" districts.
8 There will be some modifications to both the
9 mapping, basically to the mapping with the "0" and
10 the "HB" district.
11 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Do you have any other
12 comments?
13 MR. ARNOLD: No. The only other thing is
14 that we had made an analysis of the amount of
15 dwelling units that would result from the new
16 residential zoning plan, and that it was broken
17 down in to, I did it in two segments. One is
18 analyzing all of the parcels in the Town of ten
19 acres or greater. There was approximately 4900
20 acres of such vacant land, and the difference
1
21 i between the existing zoning and the proposed zoning
22 in terms of the residential density is a reduction
23 of approximately five hundred units.
24 Additionally, with that I reviewed the
25 parcels having a lot size of 1.8 to ten acres.
1
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
2 This is everything that, everything that was
3 developed, whether it was developed or vacant for
4 parcels of 1.8 acres to ten acres. There was
5 approximately 2500 acres of this type of
6 development or non development, and we had a
7 reduction of somewhere in the neighborhood of 250
8 to 300 lots that would occur in that area, so we're
9 talking essentially of approximately an 800 lot
10 reduction by going with the revised residential
11 zoning densities as compared to the existing
12 zoning. This translates in to the amount of
13 services that the Town would require, the amount of
14 i traffic that would be generated, and we feel it's,
i
15 you know, it's a reduction that the Town can live
16 with. Thank you.
17 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you, Ray. Mr.
18 Mitchell.
19 MR. MITCHELL: Am I to understand the
20 I Inter -City Tire piece is going to "0", is that it?
21 MR. ARNOLD: Highway business.
22 MR. MITCHELL: Oh, it's going to highway
23 business?
24 MR. ARNOLD: Right.
25 MR. MITCHELL: All right. 1 was here on
16i
1
2
3
4
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
behalf of Mr. Erbesh on that piece, and if that
stays highway business then there would not be a
problem with Mr. Erbesh on that piece.
17
5 I'm also here on behalf of Beverly Cantor who
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
owns an adjoining piece which is a five acre piece
immediately south on Route 9 of the Inter -City Tire
piece, and it is zoned, prior to this change was
zoned, the front acre which abuts Route 9 was zoned
"HB" 1A, and the back four acres were zoned R-20.
As I understand what's happening pursuant to this
map, and as I understand it, that is not being
13 changed as to this piece, the front piece is going
14 from "HB" lA to R-20 which means that we now have a
15 one acre piece on Route 9 that is expected to put
16 half acre lots and houses and which I have a
17 problem with.
18 If we take a look at the site you have
19 immediately to the north, the Inter -City Tire piece
20 which is obviously "HB", which is going back to
21
"HB", it's a building, it's being used, it's a
22 going business. You have Route 9 in front of it
23 which is probably one of the busiest highways that
24 we have in the County today, heavy traffic, and we
25 have across the street, 1 believe, if it's still
1
2
3 district. On the side of it there are some other
4 R-20 districts. I think it's totally unreasonable
5 to expect someone to develop half acre lots on a
6 one acre parcel on Route 9 today. It's just not
7 reasonable. I don't think it's something that's
8 sellable. I really think it's confiscatory, and I
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 18!
the same as it is on that map, would be also an "0"
9
10
11
12
think it's taking away the right of those people on
that property. I suppose we could say it might be
one way to address affordable housing by hammering
the price down so low on the lot that people buy it
13 , very inexpensively, but I don't think that's the
14 proper way to address it at this time.
15 The heavy traffic, I think, is something that
16 zoning considers as a tremendous problem with
17 residential development and I see that as being a
18 very real problem, too.
19 The incompatible adjacent uses, particularly
20 the Inter -City Tire piece and whatever might go
21 across the street, which is now as I understand it
22 vacant land, we, Mrs. Cantor is very much opposed
23 1 to this ordinance and the changes that are being
24 made, and would ask your consideration in looking
25 at her piece of property. Ask yourself whether you
1
2
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 19
would like to buy a half acre parcel fronting on
3 Route 9, and we hope that you will vote to change
4 it when the final zoning amendments are made.
5 SUPERVISOR. PAINO: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
6 Curtis Rymer.
7 MR. RYMER: Good evening. My name is Curtis
8 Rymer. My address is 12 Tamarack Drive in Hopewell
9 Junction. I own a piece of ground that's 40,
10 almost 41 acres, it's in Wappinger, it's on Old
11
12
13
14
Hopewell Road, Old Hopewell Road south of Route 9,
if you go from Hark Plaza getting towards 9D and
just beyond that deli, my property is 350 foot of
road frontage, goes to the next house, the next
15 property and extends back a considerable distance,
40 acres worth. It is bordered on the south side
by telephone lines as well as the backside as well.
18 It has a class B stream that runs from the south
16
17
19 right up to the front of the property and you'll
20 see a little concrete place in the water to go
21 underneath the road. The zoning situation is that
22 they want to change it from R-20 which is half acre
23
24
25
zoning to R-40. Over half of the land is basically
taken up by the stream which creates a problem.
Between the setbacks that are required for the
1
2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
20
i
stream, as well as the boundary with respect to the
properties next door, it makes it difficult in
order to use that particular parcel of land.
Going to the one acre zoning creates problems
as well because it's in that sewer district, in
that sewer district with the one acre of land. If
you look at, not the relationship, but if you look
at the numbers, what they say, it says one acre
zoning and then it says water/sewer, then there's
another line that says one acre zoning and it's
just a blank, so there's really not a provision
there for me to even use that for a single family
home in that particular situation. So, really I
can't really use the land effectively. As a matter
of fact, I can't even sell it the way it is right
now.
I met with Mr. Levenson as well as Hayward
and Paken, the architects, and I have a
recommendation that I think we can come up with
something that would be very helpful to everybody.
You have a copy of my letter as well as maps
of my land.
What it boils down to is, I would request, as
opposed to doubling the density and making it R-20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 21
to R-40, that you rezone property to "RMF" number 5
which is known by family zoning. What I would like
to do with the land available, realizing that out
of 40 acres you're only going to be able to use
probably between 15 acres for actual zoning, would
be to put apartments in there. The location is in
such a nature, in site of Route 9, got the deli
next door there. It's bordered by R-10 zoning and
R-20 zoning. The only other undeveloped piece
which is on the west side, that particular parcel
along with mine is proposed for R-40 zoning.
I have asked the firm to come up with
recommendations, and hopefully within 30 days we'll
have a copy of a plot plan that will make effective
utilization of this property, but once again, it's
isolated and there's a lot of detail in the letter
here which explains what I'm looking for.
Just one other comment. You have in your
proposed development area in this document that I
bought from the Town here, it says basically that
there's a lot of developments going on, however, a
vast majority of the proposed units will be owner
occupied, single family residences on individual
lots and it will be expensive. Such development
1
2
3
4
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
cannot be counted on to help Wappinger meet its
share of the regional demand for diverse,
affordable, and innovative housing. I think I can
22
5 do something like that with this particular
6 property. It's in the right area, I feel. It can
7 be very beneficial that way. Thank you for your
8 consideration.
9 SUPERVISOR. PAINO: Thank you, Mr. Rymer.
10 Michael Gregory.
11 MR. GREGORY: I'm Michael Gregory, and I'm
12 here not to address any concerns about proposed
13 zoning changes to my particular piece, but
14 surrounding properties. I own a piece of property,
15 about ten acres, just, I guess it would be west of
16 Didell Road on 376, and the old zoning the way it
17 was laid out was office research 10 behind me, and
18 1 to the west of me was all residential. With the
19 new proposed zoning, now the conservation office
20 has crept down and will in fact be using a
21 right-of-way very close to my property line, within
22 two hundred feet. It seems now that I'm being
23 surrounded by commercial on all sides.
24 I would propose that either from that
25 commercial piece, that conservation office park,
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
2 either one or two things happen, either the elder
3 Cicone piece that was now granted commercial
4 status, either be put back to its residential
5
category or that whole clump all the way over to
6 the railroad track be given the same status of
7 commercial nature so we can all benefit from it and
8 hopefully the Town would too.
9 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Gregory King.
10 MR. KING: My name is Greg King. I own an
11 acre parcel on Route 376, intersection of Didell,
12 376. My concerns are that the adjacent property
13 line is being rezoned. The access to this property
14 is across this property. I would like to see the
15 zoning consistent across my property with the
16 zoning of the adjacent property.
17 I have a letter here I'd like to submit to
18 the Town that summarizes these concerns.
19 1 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you.
20 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Mrs. Olivieri.
21 MRS. OLIVIERI: Hi. I have property on Old
22 Hopewell Road and I had originally submitted a
23 letter saying that I wanted it changed, but I just
24 want to ask a few questions.
25 I'm not quite clear on, is there going to be
23
1
2
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
a vote after this meeting on this map?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: No.
MRS. OLIVIERI: Okay. Now, you also said
that there are going to be more changes because of
6 1 the people that are here complaining, so we can see
1
7 that people don't really like it, okay. Are we
8 going to have more public hearings?
9 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Yes, there will be another
10 public hearing.
11 MRS. OLIVIERI: Only one?
12 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Right.
13 MRS. OLIVIERI: Okay. And if we don't like
14 it then and you vote on it we're stuck with it?
15 What I'm trying to say is, you said there's going
16 to be more changes but we can't really see them
17 because it gets confusing. He's from 376, I'm from
18 Hopewell, whose from here, whose from what. I
19 1 can't physically see it, so I'll have that one last
20 chance when you do make the final changes to see it
21 and then you'll vote on it, correct?
22 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Right.
23 MRS. OLIVIERI: And if you think the people
24 don't want it then you won't vote on it?
25 SUPERVISOR PAINO: We'll make --
241
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 25
2 MRS. OLIVIERI: What I'm trying to say is I
3 don't think this should be voted on the way it
4 stands, period. You asked people to make our
5
6
7
8
complaints, but we really have no say, because you
really don't know what you're going to do now. You
don't know what you're going to change and one more
public hearing might not solve the problem.
9 SUPERVISOR. PAINO: The purpose of the public
10 hearing this evening is for comments on the
11
12
13
14
15
16
proposed changes to the zoning ordinance, for the
ordinance that's attached, and also the map that's
in effect, and the --
MRS. OLIVIERI: At the next meeting they'll
be another map?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Correct.
17 MRS. OLIVIERI: What I'm trying to say is one
18 , more public hearing is not going to solve it if the
19
people still aren't happy and come out in
20 multitudes. You know what I'm saying? Legally
21
though, you have the right to vote on it whenever
22 , you want, you don't have to have another public
23 ' hearing, am I correct?
24
SUPERVISOR PAINO: If we make substantial
25 changes to the map we do have to have another
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
public hearing before we adopt it.
3 MRS. OLIVIERI: I just wanted to get that
4 clear, because I know when you asked the gentleman
5 , to speak I just wasn't clear on that. Okay. Thank
6 you.
7 ? SUPERVISOR PAINO: Donald Cappillino.
26'
8
9
10
11
12
MR. CAPPILLINO: Good evening. I represent
Kettle Associates. I have sent the Board a letter.
I have extra copies that I will deliver to the
Board in case the Board needs them. Kettle
Associates owns a one-half acre parcel of land
13 located on South Road just south of South
14 Fowlerhouse Road and south of the Inter -City Tire
15 parcel.
16 The map is inaccurate to the extent that
17
18
19
there has been a change in South Fowlerhouse Road
that has taken it north of the parcel, and between
our parcel and South Fowlerhouse Road is a parcel
It is
purpose
an office,
20 of land owned by the State of New York.
21 small and not going to be used for any
22 whatsoever, and that's clear. We abut
23 the new office zone parcel that has been increased
24 to include the rear portion of the lot. We submit
25 that we are now zoned in the R-20. We submit this
1
2
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 27
half acre parcel, even for residential use, will
3 require variances just to use it, but we submit
4
that that is clearly inappropriate use of the
5 parcel.
6 We talked about heavy traffic. We have
7 checked the 1989 D.O.T. calculations of the number.
The average daily traffic of South Road is 28,944
vehicles. That kind of daily count is certainly
not conducive to residential living as we would
like to see it in the Town of Wappinger.
There are a lot of legal and factual
arguments that can be made. I have made them in my
letters. I want to though, emphasis that I would
not like to be the person who puts in to effect
something that requires a residential use here, and
17 then have some child that lives in that residence
18 struck by one of these 28,944 vehicles going by
19 here. It's just inappropriate to have this as a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
residential use. You have a proposed office use.
21 It is something that appears to provide the amount
22 of commercial type of activity without providing
23 for some of the negative impacts of the other
24 commercial districts.
25 This is a perfect site for the Zoning Board
1 i
2
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
of Appeals to impose reasonable conditions and
we'll have to go to them because it is an
4 undersized lot, for that purpose, for them to
5 impose reasonable conditions, to make sure we have
6 it properly landscaped with proper vehicle flows
7 and to have an appropriate small office building on
8 that lot. It seems to be the perfect use for it.
9 It certainly is not the type of lot, because of
281
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
grade and size and location, to be used for
residential purposes.
So, we request you to look very closely at
this particular lot in reviewing this Route 9
corridor and the request of Mr. Mitchell's client.
We submit that this one is one that has even more
persuasive and compelling factors that require this
to be zoned for office use purposes. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: John Reed.
MR. REED: Good evening. My name is John
Reed. I'm an attorney. I'm here representing
21 James Klein and Dave Alexander. My office is at 75
22 Market Street in Poughkeepsie. Dave and Jim could
23 not be here tonight because of prior commitments,
24 but they asked me to be here because of their
25 concern over a parcel that they own in the corridor
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 29
2 on Route 9 that has been zoned "HB" in the front
3 and R-20 in the rear. It's just below what you
4 have designated on your new map as "COP". It's on
5 Route 9 just slightly north of Myers Corners Road
6
7
next to and behind the car wash there. They don't
understand, actually, why the route was ever zoned
8 R-20 because there's no access to the rear other
9 than through the front. It would be an
10 inappropriate place for any residential type
11 building, but they do feel that changing it from
12 "HB" to "0" would be overly limiting that.
13 They've spent a good amount of time and a
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
good amount of money in doing some studies. They
have made some commitments that they would be
unable to keep if it were changed from "HB" to "0".
We ask you to please take a look at that. I think
it's more appropriate for "HB" than "0". We'd be
happy to meet with the Planning Board or the Town
Consultant if that would help in any way.
The only other item I had here, of course,
it's difficult to address this not knowing whether
there are any changes in store for this property or
what the exact changes are that you have in mind
for the "0" type designation. It seems to me like
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 30i
2 a lot of work and effort has gone in to bringing
3
4
this to the point that it's at, but you still need
a little more work and it would be a shame at this
5 point, and I'm glad you're postponing the vote,
6 because I think it would be a shame to vote tonight
7 when you still have something else to do. There's
8 no sense having everything you have done go to no
9 avail, so, we'd like to see it postponed, and we'd
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
also like to have that piece reconsidered.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you. Everett
Johnson.
MR. JOHNSON: Good evening. I represent the
Greater Southern Dutchess Chambers of Commerce, and
our membership includes the Town of Wappinger,
Fishkill, East Fishkill, Beacon. We have
approximately 800 members, the majority of whom are
18 small businesses
19
20
and a large number of whom are
located in Wappingers. We would, as a Chamber,
like to compliment the Town Board on initiating the
21 action to try to resolve a very difficult situation
22 that is faced by most of the municipalities in this
23 area in trying to do something that will alleviate
24 the problems that are faced by all of them.
25 However, unfortunately we cannot support this
2
4
5
6
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
particular zoning ordinance even though we think
the Town is moving in the right direction.
I have a prepared statement from the chamber
which I would like to read for the record.
"The Greater Southern Dutchess Chamber of
31
7 Commerce opposes the revised Town of Wappinger's
8 zoning ordinance because it continues to be
9 counterproductive for the long term economic
10 1 stability of the Town. The majority of issues that
11 the chamber brought up at the last public hearing
12 have not been addressed in the new ordinance.
13 While the highway business zoning along Route
14 9 appears to be the section where consideration for
15 changes have been concentrated, the proposed
16
17
18
revisions will create more traffic problems because
of the increased need for a proliferation of curb
cuts."
19 The next item you've already indicated will
20 be changed, but since our statement was prepared
21
before the meeting I'll read it any way.
22 "The requirement of a minimum of 2500 square
23 feet for commercial space will exclude many future
24 small business developments which in turn will also
25 have an adverse long term economic impact. There
2
3
4
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 32
is no provision for new multi -family housing, nor
industrial/manufacturing zones which further limit
the future economic stability and balance growth of
5 the Town. Without the ability to expand the future
6
7
8
9
tax base it translates in to higher property taxes.
Also, no provisions for increased density and
residential zones for our young families and
seniors exist, and they would be forced to move out
10 of the area in time and this in turn again puts an
11
12
13
14 1
15
additional restriction on sound balanced growth in
the Town."
We would like to offer some suggestions for
your consideration, not just be critical of the
ordinance.
16 Among these would be that "A full
17 environmental and economic impact statement be
18 prepared so that the Town Board can act with full
19 knowledge of what the impact of these actions will
20 be on all Town residents and businesses.
21 That provisions be made for higher density
22 home development, that more areas be included for
23 new multi -family and manufactured homes, that the
24 need for proliferation of curb cuts along Route 9
25 be reduced by creating deeper highway business
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 33
zones, and that the minimum of 2500 square feet for
commercial space be reduced. Also, an allowance
for increased density in residential zones be made
so that a percentage of the housing will be priced
in the range that will allow our young families and
seniors to live in the Town, and last, that a new
industrial manufacturing zone be created."
the
Again, in closing we would like to
Town Board in the direction in which
moving, and we'd
our appreciation
also like to thank you
for
the opportunity
to
compliment
it's
and express
make our
views known tonight. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you. Nick Johnson.
MR. JOHNSON: My name is Nick Johnson. I'm
not speaking on behalf of a landowner, just myself
a homeowner. In reading the legal notice in the
article there seems to be a number of things that
are not available to us. It makes reference to an
E.I.S. and I don't know if it's ever been produced.
I have not had anybody indicate that it was
available. The -- There is some reference to some
better traffic or lower traffic, easing of traffic
problems, however, I would like to see at the next
public hearing, maybe some traffic studies that can
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
2 really show us the traffic problem, how they would
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be alleviated.
Also, I would ask that when the next
34;
publication of the amendments is done, that it be
done in a way that each section follows one another
in proper order, because it's very difficult for
people to read it, and some of us, we've read this
many times and have some experience with
ordinances, it still becomes very difficult to
read.
Since the Town Board is not going to vote on
the issue and the question tonight and expects to
come up for another public hearing many of the
items I was prepared to speak about are moot and
we'll take them up at another time. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Clark DeTraglia.
MR. DETRAGLIA: Good evening. My name is
Clark DeTraglia, I'm from Brook -Mead Associates,
Wappingers Falls, New York. I'm here to represent
Brook -Mead Associates concerning three lots that we
own on Stage Door Road. They're presently zoned
"HB" 2 now, highway business, two acre. The
sub -division is an eight lot sub -division and it
was designed for warehousing and distributing, for
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 35
2 distribution. Three or four of those lots have
3 already been built on, and it would make it very
4 difficult to go in there and build office space at
5 this point having material, supplies and that type
6 of thing around us. That's all I have to say.
7 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Matthew Poholchuk.
8 MR. POHOLCHUK: Good evening. My name is
9 1 Matthew Poholchuk and I'm a native of Wappingers
10 I Falls, and I'm representing George W. Segur whose
11 I been a County resident since 1942. The property in
12 question is on map number 4231 on the Dutchess
13 County Clerk's office. This land has been R-20
1
14 1 since 1960, and the property I'rn speaking of is All
15 Angels Road between Old Hopewell Road and Route 82.
16 This lot now is unconforming because there is a two
17 hundred year old house along with George's house
18 which was built in 1947 on this piece of property
19 which is ten acres. We are looking to subdivide
20 the two hundred year old house with a half acre and
21 make a conforming lot to the past R-20 zoning
22 ordinance. If this goes through, this approval it
23 would be an asset to the Town of Wappinger, and Mr.
24 ' Segur also feels that it's an infringement on
25 landowners right to divide their land as they see
1
1 1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
2 fit. That's all I have to say.
3 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Victor Owen.
4 MR. OWEN: My name is Victor Owen. I live on
5 Old Post Road down on Route 9 about across from
6 Uniroyal Tire Store. I have about ten acres of
7 land there. I live on the land. There is actually
8 not much else there. You're changing me from
9 highway business to "0", offices. It's always been
10 highway business. I don't see why they want to
11 change it. Everything around me is businesses.
12 There's no other offices around there. I have been
13 trying to sell the land because the taxes are so
14 1 high down there, and the people that come and
15 looked at the land, there wasn't anybody interested
16 in putting offices in the area. The only thing
17 1 that they would be interested in would be, because
18 of the type of land that it is, would be something
19 like a car lot or something like that, which seems
20 to be what they're putting in in that area. I
21 guess that's all I have to say.
22 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Gerald Owen.
23 MR. OWEN: My name is Gerald Owen and I'd
24 just like to add to my father's things that he
25 said, the same piece of property. The property is
36
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 37
2 surrounded by businesses of the nature of auto
3 repair and auto sales, and the geography of the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
land makes it difficult to do any business, put
office structures on it.
Also, as far as any type of traffic problem,
there shouldn't be any because we have access to
north and southbound, actually two accesses on the
northbound side and the turn off on the northbound
side, so there shouldn't be any problem with any
extra traffic.
As far as the change, making it to office
would really degrade the value of the property
which is a very big issue at this point in our
lives.
I would like to please, like to see a
change in that. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Matt Williams. Matt
Williams.
(No Response)
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Okay. Herb Redl.
MR. REDL: My name is Herb Redl. I live at
Stream Lane, Pleasant Valley . I'm here on two
areas mainly. One parcel is directly across from
Lawrence Farms which is a Guardian Storage and
25 Video Treats, next door is Meineke Muffler. At the
6
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 38
present time it's zoned "HB". If the zoning is
changed to "0" this property would be
non -conforming.
Another parcel is north of Guardian South
Storage and Video Treats up near New Hackensack,
again it would be, if zoning was changed, it would
be non -conforming, plus, I'm in the process of
going before the Planning Board for a 50,000 square
foot building which I spent a great deal of money
on engineering and architectural fees, time and
12 s effort. To change the zoning would be a tremendous
13 financial hardship, so, I strongly recommend that
14 the Board reconsider it. Thank you.
15 THE COURT: Hugh Greer.
16 MR. GREER: Hugh Greer; Greer Toyota. I'm
17 here tonight on two different zoning changes I'd
18 like you to consider.
19 First of all, the five acre zoning for
20 automotive sales and service. I'm sure that an
21 automobile dealer doesn't need five acres to
22 qualify to be a dealer, and the main concern I have
23 tonight is that I have a piece of property in
24 Wappinger between the car wash and Waldbaums.
25 Now, for a long time -- I bought that
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 39
2 property specifically to put a franchise on it.
3 Toyota is going in to a luxury car and my
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
intentions are to put that luxury car on that
property. I had that property in front of the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Zoning Board of
Appeals told me I could put automotive on that
property. That property, however, is only four
acres. I have a paper from them saying I can, but
now I find out that it must be updated every year.
11 There's nothing on the paper that I have saying it
12 has to be updated every year. I had no knowledge
13
it had to be updated every year. If I had known it
14 had to be updated every year, probably, possibly I
15 would have followed up on it. It leaves me a
hardship now because the car will be available and
I don't have any place to put it. It costs a lot
16
i
17
18 of money to put the facility up and I couldn't
19 afford the facility and the property.
20 I want you to know also, that I turned down
21 some offers on the property from McDonalds. They
22 had a look at a deal there and I turned it down
23 because I was under the assumption that I could use
24
25
that property for automotive. I'm disappointed to
find out now that they're going to rezone it and
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
2 change it so I need five acres.
3 The other concern I have is the zoning for 20
4 cars per acre. In the automobile business you
5 can't survive on 20 cars per acre. The
6 manufacturer mandates the size of the property,
7 they mandate the volume of cars. It mandates the
8 sales facility, and indirectly they mandate how
9 many cars you have to have in inventory. So,
10 instead of having 20 cars per acre you have to have
40
11 approximately 175 cars per acre. You can't survive
12 with 20 cars per acre. Oftentimes we have more
13 than 20 cars ready for delivery, so you really have
14 to take a serious look at 20 cars an acre.
15
Somewhere along the line somebody made a mistake
16 when they looked at 20 cars per acre for a
17 franchised automobile dealer. Maybe used car lot,
18 a little corner someplace, maybe could survive on
19 I 20 cars an acre. An automobile franchise dealer
20 cannot. I want the Board to know that stocking
21 cars on a piece of property costs the dealer money.
22 We don't want to stock any cars if we can get
23 around it. Cars cost me 20, $30,000 a month in
24 interest, so I'd rather have no cars.
25 Unfortunately, we need cars. If you have some way
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 41
2 to get around that I'd be very happy to talk to the
3 manufacturer about that, but that's a necessity in
4 the automobile business.
5 So, those two issues I would like you to look
6 at for me, changing it from four acres to five
7 acres making it impossible for me to put an
8 automobile dealership, for me to put it on that
9 piece of property which has been promised to me by
10 the Town, and the 20 cars per acre. You have to
11 take a serious look at that because that has to be
12 a mistake. I appreciate your time.
13 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Angelo Zeno.
14 MR. ZENO: My partner spoke for me.
15 i SUPERVISOR PAINO: Martin Slinger.
16 (No Response)
17 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Robert Werner.
18 MR. WERNER: I didn't realize I was signing
19 up to speak. I have nothing to say.
20 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Hugo Musto.
21 ' MR. MUSTO: I thought you were having a
22 raffle that's why I signed.
23 I want to say I agree with the general
24 concept even though I heard some hardships here.
25 The general concept sounds good. That's all.
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 421
2 j SUPERVISOR PAINO: Jim Tompkins.
3
4
5
6
MR. TOMPKINS: Pass.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Yvonne Tompkins.
MS. TOMPKINS: Pass.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Alberta Roe.
7 MS. ROE: Pass.
8 SUPERVISOR PAINO: James Heratbottle.
9 (Phonetic)
10 MR. HERATBOTTLE:(Phonetic). I'll pass.
11 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Patrick MacKrell.
12 MR. MACKRELL: My name is Pat MacKrell. I'm
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
an attorney from Albany, New York and I represent
L. Richard Rosenberg, Chelsea Ridge Associates and
Sal Silver.
Two specific areas of comment which I'll
reduce to a letter now that I have seen additional
revisions. One is when using the 40/80 or the
20/40, the revisions do not appear to be consistent
as to the central system.- Part of the regulation
21 uses the word central system. In another part of
22 the regulation it uses the word public system.
23 Another part of the regulation it uses the word
24 common system. It would appear that the intent is
25 that it's identical throughout, but I would urge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 43
that any revisions clearly identify the term as
common or central, and then use that throughout
when allowing the application of the 40/80 or the
20/40 or whatever the enhanced density is for
common treatment for water supply.
The other issue is with regard to section
425.33, the PUD location access. That section I
would submit needs a lot of work. The PUD location
access, it's in general terms, that may be put in
an area where there is mixed business residential.
There's no definition what an area is, how far
you're going to look to find that area, whether you
may resort to contiguous zones or whether there has
to be an actual zoning business use or a
pre-existing non -conforming use, or how that's
going to be defined. The PUD ordinance, as a
whole, as it's drafted in the revisions, I would
submit, needs a lot of work, and it places quite a
burden on the developer or anyone who wants to
utilize that to develop this property as it
currently stands.
The third point is a more general point, and
harking what I suggest are the comments of the
Dutchess County Planning Department relative to
1
2
3
4
7
10
13
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
affordable housing. The plan, the revisions
441
circulated at this point, for the most part,
systematically excludes affordable housing. They
make it impossible for, or virtually impossible to
have anything, any development of any density which
can provide for affordable type housing, and
essentially throws in low density zones in what
have traditionally been higher density areas and I
expect, and would respectfully submit that that
needs some work as well.
Mrs. Paino, you indicated earlier there would
be no vote this evening. Does that include any
14 vote relative to a negative declaration?
15 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Yes. Anything related to
16 this.
17 MR. MACKRELL: There will be no vote
18 whatsoever taken this evening?
19 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Correct.
20 MR. MACKRELL: Okay. Thank you.
21 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Frank Frascati.
22 MR. FRASCATI: Pass.
23 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Turk. A.H. Turk.
24 MS. TURK: I have, not a comment, but I want
25 some questions answered. Would you answer some
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
questions?
MR. VALDATI: Certainly.
MS. TURK: I live in the Town of Wappinger
and I have some questions.
What is the reason for the proposed rezoning?
Is it because of State mandates or is it for the
Dutchess County Master Plan?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Basically it's because the
plan that the Town had been working with was a
dozen to fourteen years old and the Town felt it
was time to take a look at revising the plan.
MS. TURK: This is just among the Town, no
State mandate, no time limit or anything like that?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Correct.
MS. TURK: Does the Town have any time limit
on this proposed zoning?
MR. VALDATI: No.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: No.
MS. TURK: Okay. There's a book that I read
from Miss Patterson's office, Chosing the Road Less
Crowded, where she composes denser population with
green belts, also, a water resource management plan
which they said will bring in sewers. Now, how
will that affect the Town with the Tri -Municipal
45
1
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 46
and the new proposed zoning? Will we have a
Tri -Municipal in and then in a couple of years will
the Town come in with the water resource management
and sort of negate Tri -Municipal?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Well, we can't really
foresee what the County is going to be do, but I
would ask that you please keep your comments
specifically towards the zoning ordinance and also
to the zoning map.
MS. TURK: Well, I was just seeing --
SUPERVISOR PAINO: We can't guess what the
County is going to be doing.
14 MS. TURK: Okay. I just saw the proposed
15 sewer lines there.
16 I Another thing there, can you tell me what
rt
17 i areas of the Town has been rezoned and what
18 percentage from the old map?
19 4 SUPERVISOR PAINO: You would have to take a
20 look at the maps. I believe in this presentation
21 our Town Planner, Ray Arnold went over some of
22 those statistics and they're a matter of public
23 record. If you'd like to get a copy of that,
24 you're more than welcome to.
25 MS. TURK: Okay. That answered my questions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you. Edward
Llewellyn.
MR. LLEWELLYN: Pass.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Jack Railing.
MR. RAILING: Good evening. My name is Jack
Railing; I'm a businessman in the Town of
Wappinger. I also own property on Route 9.
I did have quite a few comments relative to
the proposed rezoning, however, I think what I'll
do between now and preparation of the next map,
some of the more technical matters I'll submit for
the Board for their consideration and I'll just
highlight some of my concerns.
I understand that the changes that you'll be
making to the rezoning map will require a new
public hearing, is that correct?
MR. WOOD: Yes.
MR. RAILING: I would also request, as Mr.
Johnson did, that when you do this that you make
one composite document. As I see it what's in the
paper at this point are only the changes to the
zoning ordinance. I think it would be easier
reading to the general public, and certainly to me
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 example, the sign ordinance. So, rather than have
8 10 or 12 documents to deal with, it would be a lot
9 easier in the next go round to have that in one
10 continuous fluid document.
11 , I didn't really get the jist from what the
12 Supervisor had read relative to the County
13 ( recommendations. What I am led to believe is that
14 the County has indicated that portions of the
15 zoning ordinance are acceptable, however they have
16 certain recommendations which must be incorporated
17 before they will enforce that, is that correct?
18 MR. WOOD: That's correct.
19 MR. RAILING: I expressed at the last public
20 hearing on the proposed rezoning the method by
21 which SEQRA has been attacked relative to the
22 rezoning. In some of the documents that have been
23 circulated recently, the Town Planner has indicated
24 that this is in fact a type 1 action under SEQRA,
25 and that "It was more likely to require an
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 481
having worked with these type of documents every
day, to have it in one document. At present you
have to insert certain things and delete certain
things from the old 1980 document as well as any
changes that were made between 1980 and 1989, for
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 49
2 environmental impact statement." I still have not
3 seen a document which analyzes many of the concerns
4 that were brought up at the last public hearing,
5 specifically the economic impact to the community,
6 whether positive or negative. The memo that was
7 put out by the Town Planner referenced that some
8 j information was available, but it was not available
9 ! in the hand-out that was purchased, that I
10 ! purchased. I again would request that the Town
11 # Board consider the appropriation of an
12 environmental impact statement on this very
13 significant document which is being presented
14 before the Town.
15 9 I noted several things on the rezoning map.
16 One was the proposed sewer line which is good
17 information. I'm not sure that a proposed line
18 should really be on a proposed zoning map. In
19 keeping with that I did not understand why one
20 s would consider incorporating areas that are
21 ` presently zoned R-20 and the sewer district and at
22 j the same time change that zoning to R-40. I think
23 economically there's some considerations that
24 should be looked at in that respect, because I'm
25 not sure whose going to be able to pay for that
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 50i
2 i sewer.
3 I did note that the document does restrict
4 commercial areas further, specifically in the Route
5
6
7
8
9 r
10 Also, you have documents before the Planning
9 corridor. It made many existing facilities, and
some of them were mentioned tonight,
non -conforming, and I have questions as to how the
Town is going to deal with those newly created
non -conforming lots.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Board and possibly the zoning board in various
stages of approval, and I wonder how they are going
to be dealt with by the Town Board, Zoning Board of
Appeals and the Planning Board. For example, if
the applications are before the Board and has
preliminary approval in an R-20 zone and it is now
zoned to R-40 will that approval continue? I think
the ordinance doesn't speak to it, not that I'm
trying to sway you in any direction how to deal
with it, but it doesn't deal with those lots you're
making non -conforming.
There are some areas, as I stated at the last
23 public hearing, which I think approach or are
24 tantamount to spot zoning. There are still some
25 areas on Route 9 which I feel are inappropriately
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
zoned as residential.
Others have spoken already relative to the
2500 minimum square foot in the office zone. I
think there's another section that relates to
retail minimum of 2500 square foot in that same
zone, and having spoken with members of the
8 commercial field that particular number is rather
9 large, and we would also request that you consider
51
10 ; re-evaluating that as well.
1
11 i Our property on Route 9, and we now, myself
12 and others are involved in two properties, one of
13 which has an existing building on it opposite
14 Greenbaum and Gilhooley's, is presently zoned "HB".
15 You are rezoning that to office. We obviously are
16 not in favor of that rezoning. We see no evidence
17 presented before the public as to why that was
18 rezoned to office. We do not see what it is of the
19 properties that would preclude it from developing a
20 commercial "HB" site, and therefore we would
21 request more information as to why that was
22 actually presented.
23 We also consider the rezoning confiscatory
24
25
and we are very concerned about the potential of
this taking. It does restrict the uses that we
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance-
;
2 presently enjoy as owners of those properties.
3 Some of the other things that may have been
4 a missed that I have experienced in my dealings with
5 the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals of
6 ! the Town of Wappinger that have not been addressed
7 in this ordinance and I think they should be
8 addressed, if you can work on that between now and
9 the next meeting it will please many people, and
10 they relate to the definitions of use, the
11 ' availability of mixed uses within the zones, some
12
13
14 somewhat. I think if you're concerned about some
15 of the growth that's occurring in the Town of
16 Wappinger, I think you should zero in on your
17 architectural review portion of the ordinance.
18 Again, the architectural review portion of the
19 ordinance. If there is one area that will assist
20
21 commercial and residential areas, more so in the
22
23
24 the changes to the zoning plan. Thank you.
25 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Bill Bright.
52
of the mother daughter homes in consideration, some
of the special use procedures could be streamlined
any community in the development of the Town in the
commercial areas, it's that area. Architecturally.
Again, I'll reserve other comments when I see
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 53
2 MR. BRIGHT: I'm a property owner on a piece
3 of land on Route 9. I simply have a question on
4 the office zoning. It states in the ordinance a
5 minimum of 2500 square feet for office zoning.
6 What size is the minimum? Is there going to be a
7 minimum when you go back and change that?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
SUPERVISOR PAINO: No, there wasn't supposed
to be a minimum.
MR. BRIGHT: There will be no minimum in
office zoning. How about for commercial?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: I'm speaking only to the
office.
MR. BRIGHT: Office, yeah.
15 SUPERVISOR PAINO: As far as the retail, yes,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there's supposed to be the minimum of 2500 square
feet.
MR. BRIGHT: I would be opposed to that as a
property owner. It limits our use of that
property. We purchased it at
"HB"
and now it's
being changed to "0". That's all I have to say.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: John Perillo.
MR. PERILLO: Pass.
THE COURT: Anthony Monteleone.
MR. MONTELEONE: Good evening. My name is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 54
Anthony Monteleone; I'm an attorney with offices in
Mount Kisco, New York. My client is Alexander
Hartman who has approximately 180 acres on Route
376. This property has been zoned planned
industrial and one acre residential. Under your
present zoning proposals the property would be
rezoned to "COP", and what I commonly refer to as
40/60, 60/80, residential development, and as I
understand that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that
means that you can build one home on 40,000 square
feet provided you have water and sewer, one on 60
if you only have one, water or sewer, and one on 80
if you have neither water or sewer. Now, from the
comments of Mr. Arnold, he indicated that there
would only be approximately an 800 lot reduction in
available lots, and I ask him whether that is based
upon a 40,000 square foot availability of water and
sewer for each parcel as under your proposed
zoning, or whether there would be variables and a
greater reduction if there were only water or if
there -- or sewer or there were neither water or
sewer. So, I think that should be addressed in
your consideration of this proposed zoning.
Let me go on. There has been talk about
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
whether this zoning ordinance should, or would be
passed before that magic day in November. Some
newspapers suggest that should be done. I
respectfully suggest to you that the present status
of this ordinance, the fact that a full
environmental impact statement has not been done,
would make any passage before that date in November
or even reasonably after it, somewhat precipitous
at best and possibly arbitrary and capricious at
worst. I think there's more homework that needs to
be done.
As to the particular properties of my client,
at the present time, and we have been before your
55
15 Planning Board for some months now, going in to
16 years, great emphasis has been placed by them upon
{
17 traffic on Route 376, and I respectfully suggest to
18 you that putting a "COP" zone in this area,
19 although the long thought about, but not to be yet
20
21
22
23
24
25
to be built, County Route 11 passes through the
area, this property and many other properties that
are "COP" zoned will not have access to it, not
immediate access. "COP" zone will generate
tremendous amounts of traffic under your proposal.
I suggest that putting a "COP" zone in this area
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
2 would only increase and aggravate traffic.
3 The "COP" zone itself, in many cases, and in
4 particular in this property, becomes confiscatory.
5 e Your five hundred by five hundred widths and depth
6 requirements have not in any way considered either
7 the topography or the reality of this lot site, nor
8 other sites. You're basically preventing the
9 property from being developed. I suggest to you,
10 based on observations of the present status of that
11 area, that a zone which you have proposed, that
12 being conservation commercial, by right would be a
13 feasible proposal for 376 in this area, to a depth
14 of approximately two hundred feet with the ability
{
15 to have single accesses from the roadway so as to
16 avoid traffic congestion and the clustering of
17 commercial units therein, and that the balance of
18 the property not be zoned in your ten acre "COP",
19 but rather consider, if you're going to consider
20 "COP" at all, a five acre lot size requirement for
21 "COP" which would be more compatible with the
22 existing limitations on this property and other
23 properties, and I suggest this to "COP" in general.
24 As to the residential development, once again
25 I emphasis that to place the requirement that a
56
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 57
2 property owner can only build on two acres if he
3 does not have water and sewer, with the fact that
4 the Planning Board and this Town is saying but
5 water and sewer are coming, is in effect extending
6 your moratorium ad infinitum and I don't think
7 that's appropriate. You either have to get your
8 water and sewer in within a feasible time so that
9 property owners can develop their sites reasonably,
10 9 within a reasonable timeframe, or you must permit
11 them to develop under the old zoning, the one acre
12 which is more than adequate for water and sewer.
13 If you don't want sewerage treatment plants, say
14 so. Don't say that we'll let you build a sewerage
15 treatment plant but it has to be one that can be
16 immediately converted to a sewer system. That's a
17 fine high minded idea, but it's really not
18 workable.
19 fi I have gone over my three minutes. I
20 appreciate it. Thank you.
21 ' SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you. Doug Nestler.
22 r MR. NESTLER: I'm Doug Nestler, and I
23 ! primarily was concerned with the 2500 square foot
24 , rule on the office. I understand that is being
25 stricken completely. I was concerned about the
1
2
6
7
8
9 t
10
11
12
13
14
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
58
retail still being left in to the ordinance. There
are probably 75 to 80 percent of all retail in the
Town of Wappinger or southern Dutchess is in
locations of less than 2500 square feet per tenant.
I think this rule should be looked at again because
it just does not make sense.
The other area that's of concern is down on
the Stage Door Road area. That road was put in a
number of years ago and before it could be taken
over they made them widen it to a 40 foot pavement,
reset all the catch basins, much heavier duty
blacktop, and so that it would be an industrial
road, and now it's being considered as office. I
15 think this is inconsistent. Thank you.
16 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Evelyn Blatz.
17 1
MS. BLATZ: I'd just like to make a comment
18 as both a mother and a daughter. I'm a mother of a
19 young adult who cannot afford to live here, and a
{
20 daughter of elderly parents who would have no place
21 to live either, once they can't stay in their own
22 homes. So I would plead that you give some
23 consideration to the recommendations of the County
24 Planning Board and the Chamber of Commerce to
25 provide affordable housing for those two groups.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: L. Sordi
MR. SORDI: My name is Lou Sordi. I read in
the pads up there that they were going to put up
disposal plants and I seen a lot of disposal
plants. I don't think anybody would want to see
them after two or three years later. Was that
there on the menu?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: I'm not sure what disposal
plants you're talking about, Mr. Sordi.
MR. SORDI: In other words, to eliminate the
cesspools and things like that.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Oh, Tri -Municipal.
MR. VALDATI: The sewer system.
MR. SORDI: Is that going to raise the taxes?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: That is not on for this
evening. That is not a Tri -Municipal hearing.
MR. SORDI: Okay. Well, thanks a lot any
59
way.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Bruce Pearson. Is Bruce
Pearsonerson here?
(No Response)
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Leif Jensen.
MR. JENSEN: Good evening. My name is Leif
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 60
Jensen; Town of Wappinger. Previous member of the
Town Board.
There's been some comments made tonight that
I would have made myself but they have already been
addressed, so therefore, I'll just try to give you
a snapshot of what I want to say in conclusion.
There's one area that I'm more concerned with
the most. The zoning ordinance in my opinion
should reflect all uses of a Town such as Wappinger
required to function as a municipality that would
12 provide all its residents a fine place to live,
13
14
15 1
16
work and play. Unfortunately, this new ordinance
falls short of the intended goals and under the
illusionary name of growth management has not
included the full myriad of housing units that a
17 community such as Wappinger requires to allow
18 various segments of our population to live where
19 they work. The cost of a building lot under our
20 present ordinance is over $60,000 per lot with no
21 improvements. As the ordinance does not provide
22 alternative housing these would-be Wappigerians
23 have to move elsewhere. Our senior citizens are
24 also effected as they cannot afford to live in an
25 area whose tax base is made up of some ninety
1
2
3
4
5
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
percent residential and 10 percent industrial
commercial. The industrial commercial zones have
been made more restrictive to a point where the
small businessman cannot operate in the Town of
6 Wappinger, thereby eliminating the potential jobs
7 for that part of the population I spoke about
8 earlier, namely our young people. It's apparent
9 this ordinance is drafted in such a manner as to
10 eliminate all growth which of course would be to
11 the detriment of the Town. The infrastructure of
12 the Town will continually need to be maintained
13 with and without a sound tax base. The burden of
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
these repairs will be put solely on the homeowner.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: John Schouten.
MR. SCHOUTEN: My name is Schouten; I'm from
Wappinger a long time, all my life. I'm here not
to complain, just some observations and some
opinions.
I have watched the zoning from before it was
here and when it started, the planning when it
started, right on through to now. A lot of things
I didn't like, some things were all right. I'll
give you a little reflection on what I think of
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
Route 9 at its present state as compared to when I
was a boy. I could ride a horse up and not see a
vehicle on it. Right now I call it suicide alley,
Route 17, Paramus, New Jersey, whatever. I'm not
happy with it. I'm sure nobody else is happy with
it. There's something I would reflect on with
State of New Jersey, throw limited access highways
alongside of what's left to see if you can save it
that way. This is kind of constructive. I'm not
criticizing anybody.
Mrs. Helmsley made a nice statement in the
paper that I was able to read fortunately. She
said only the little guys pay taxes. All I hear
from zoning, planning, local people is, well, the
more houses we get the tax base got to go down,
ain't got to pay so much. Well, if this is what
zoning and planning is doing, I'm unhappy, I'm very
unhappy, and I don't care who knows it.
I would also like to address the fact that
developers coming in to our Town over the years, my
feelings are if they want to put a development in,
fine, if they own the property, that's fine. If
there's water on the property and it needs roads to
get in and out of, the developer puts the roads in.
62!
1
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
1
63
2 The developer digs the ground up and puts the storm
3 drains in, not down to the local highway, but to
4 wherever that water has to go to dissipate. The
5
6
7 I
8 f beginning and with all this planning and zoning and
9 good people sitting around to try to figure things
10 out with, it ain't cutting the rope to me. Thank
11 you.
12 SUPERVISOR PAINO: William Murtha.
Town should not be paying for this, my feelings.
Strictly my own feelings. As I say I got 63 years,
all my life here, and from what I seen in the
13
MR. MURTHA: Pass.
14 j SUPERVISOR PAINO: Frank Buyakowski.
15 MR. BUYAKOWSKI: Since I spoke at the
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
previous meetings at the public hearing, since most
of the other landowners have expressed what I would
have said, I'll pass.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Okay. Eric Gardell.
MR. GARDELL: I pass for the same reason.
THE COURT: Richard Sabatelli.
MR. SABATELLI: I'd just like to say that I
23 lived here 18 years in the Town of Wappinger.
24 We've seen tremendous growth since then, and I
25 think if we continue with the growth in the future
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 64
2 as we have in the past the quality of life is going
to suffer greatly in our Town, and if the proposed
4 changes can in some way limit the growth or
5 organize the growth, structure the growth in the
6 , future, then I would be in favor of the proposed
7 changes. Thank you.
8 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Richard Cantor.
9 1 MR. CANTOR: Pass for this evening.
10
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Richard Kojowski.
11 MR. KOJOWSKI My name is Rick Kojowski;
12 resident of Chelsea. I just want to pick up on the
13 statement made earlier by Mr. Valdati about that
14 leaflet that was circulated, and I'd like to thank
15 both he and Connie Smith whom I discussed this
16 matter with. I knew they didn't have anything to do
17 with it, but I think it's unfortunate that the
18 sleaze factor has entered in to the picture and
19 that we have unknown individuals who are so gutless
20 that they can't bring themselves to sign their own
21 position papers and instead try to cash in on the
22 goodwill and honesty of people such as Connie Smith
23 and Robert Valdati.
24 I'm sure the anonymous author of that paper
25 didn't intend it, but I'd like to discuss one of
9
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 65
2 the matters, namely the allegations that our taxes
3 may double as a result of this zoning ordinance,
4 proposed zoning ordinance. I think that's a bit
5 absurd to assert that the as yet unpassed
6 unapproved zoning ordinance will cause our taxes to
7 double. For most of us our taxes already have
8 doubled in the last couple of years. It's a result
9 of haphazard zoning and development and for all
10 those reasons we need the zoning ordinance that is
11 being proposed here, with I would say few changes.
12 Unfortunately, we have still the influence in this
13 Town of the free lunch crowd who think that high
14 density zoning creates rateables and has negligible
15 effect on the roadways and the schools, and I think
16 s the free lunch crowd is at about at the end of
}
17 their track. We are all beginning to realize now
18 that rapid uncontrolled development serves only to
19 increase our taxes and to lessen the quality of our
20 life. The purpose of the zoning ordinance should
21 rightly be to create a framework within which
22 growth can occur in an orderly manner with due
23 consideration for the environment and economic and
24 social matters.
25 i The ordinance by law shall not be
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 66
2 confiscatory, but on the other hand, it need not
3 guarantee as yet unrealized profits or never to be
4 realized profits by people who are sitting on their
5 t land and didn't do any work on it or didn't try to
6 develop their land because of the stock market
7 crash or because interest rates weren't right or
8 the building market was soft, so, again, the zoning
9 ordinance doesn't guarantee anyone anticipated
10 profits as long as the ordinance isn't
11 confiscatory.
12 We believe that the ordinance as presently
13 proposed with a few changes has been well thought
14 out by a group of particularly talented and
15 dedicated people, and we urge that the measure be
16 approved in a timely manner. It would be
17 distressing, to say the least, if passage of the
18 zoning ordinance is further delayed as a result of
19 either partisan politics, special interest, or
20 especially, unfounded anonymous assertions. Thank
21 you.
22 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Dorothy Petrusyk.
23 (No Response)
24 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Richard Petrusyk.
25 (No Response)
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 67
2 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Jeffery Peni.
3 MR. PENI: My name is Jeff Peni. I own 27
4 acres off of Didell Road in the Town of Wappinger.
5 Right now it's zoned planned industry one acre and
6 office research 10 acres. It's both commercial.
7 Right now you're changing it to "COP" and R-40.
8 Right now the property is adjoining County Route
9 11. I think that the property should stay
10 commercial. I don't think anybody would want to
11 have their house right off of County Route 11, so I
12 don't think that it's very consistent with the
13 zoning. Thank you.
14 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you. Harold Reilly.
15 MR. REILLY: I previously wrote a letter on
16 behalf of Tim Weber. As long as that's made part
17 of the record I have no comments.
18 SUPERVISOR PAINO: It's here. Joel Hanig.
19 MR. HANIG: Good evening. My name is Joel
20 Hanig, and I'm an attorney, and I represent Robert
21 Tompkins who owns a number of parcels along Route 9
22 in the Town.
23 I first have an observation based upon the
24
25
number of landowners who have come forward to speak
tonight to this Board, and by in large it appears
1
2
6
7 ! this Town who are going to be substantially
8
9
10
11
12
13 about my ownership of the land, my neighbors
14
15
16
17 about what they currently have.
18
19
20
21
22
23 landowners to come in and sit down with those
24 people who seem to be in power who are now
25 proposing different changes.
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
to me that the proposed zoning ordinance which is
now before this Town Board is what appears to be an
ivory tower type of ordinance where the people who
have drafted the ordinance don't appear to have had
68 I
1
any person to person contact with the landowners in
effected by the ordinance. By in large there has
not been anybody to come forward tonight who has
said that somebody from this municipal board has
actually contacted me, has actually sat down with
me, has invited me to sit down and speak to them
ownership of adjoining parcels, and how these new
districts that are being proposed can actually tie
in to the homeowners and property owners feelings
I think that based upon what I have seen, it
is somewhat premature for this Board to actually
now go forward, either tonight or at any subsequent
night and act on this proposed zoning and zone
changes without invitations to actual groups of
i
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 69
2 Getting to my particular clients concerns.
3 At this point my client owns what he feels are
4 substantial parcels along Route 9 in the Town of
5
6
7
8
Wappinger. One of them is where there is now a
location that is called Precision Tuning, it used
to be the former Lee Myles Transmission. That was
a highway business zone. It used to be "HB", and
9 it still is "HB", and the uses that are along there
10 are in line with what would normally be considered
11 to be "HB". All of a sudden now what is being
12
13
14
15
16
proposed by the Town is to change that zone to
office. We find that very hard to understand. It
doesn't seem to have any sense of reality with
regard to the existing structures that are there.
The structures along there don't appear to lend
17 themselves to conversion, to office space, nor do
18 the property owners actually want to lend
19 themselves to office space.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Within that zone, by in large, there are
about eight different landowners, and I have a
petition here signed by seven out of the eight,
objecting to that particular zone change. It is my
impression that under general Town Laws and
Municipal Laws that when a petition is presented to
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
2
4
6
7
8
9
the Town Board by more than 20 percent of the
owners of the zone which is effected, that there
are certain requirements that have to be followed
by a municipality to achieve a zone change in that
particular zone.
With regard to the other property that is
owned by Mr. Tompkins which is somewhat north of
there on Route 9 where he has his current Lee
701
10 Myles, the Town is proposing to keep that as a "HB"
11 zone, but he also objects to that too, because what
12 the Town is doing is substantially changing
13 definitions which provide for allowable uses in
14 1 that zone, and are given a great deal of latitude
15 and discretion to different municipal boards in
16 terms of what can and what cannot be done, and we
17 don't feel that there is enough guidance or that
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's sufficiently definite to apprise a property
owner as to what he can or cannot do within those
particular zones, and I likewise have a petition to
present which has been signed by more than 25 --
more than 20 percent of the effected landowners in
that particular zone.
We feel as some of the other people have
said, that this proposed rezoning will involve for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 71
a great number of landowners in this Town what has
been called legally a confiscation of their
property by imposing upon their property a
devaluation against their will with respect to
that, and while I know that there may very well be
some people who are proposing to address that at
length at the next meeting, we feel that this
proposes some financial risk for the municipality
in terms of the exposure that they would have to
landowners who may make claims against the Town
because of that.
We have also felt that there should be a full
environmental impact statement. I think that there
was, what was somewhat of an elaborated long form
environmental assessment form. That seems to be
somewhat inadequate for this type of a proposed
wholesale rezoning that will strongly effect what
is presently inventoried within the Town as well as
the intention of the Town to go forward and to do
what is best for the landowners and the Town as
well as the general public at large.
The questions that my client has is, why now,
in terms of certain uses, five acre minimums have
been established without due regard to what the
1
2
3
4
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 72
inventory of land ownership is in those zones that
the five acres will apply to. It seems to be
inconsistent that the Town is going to impose five
acre minimums where the average land ownership may
6 be somewhat between two and four acres in the
7 different zones. You're creating a no build
8 situation with regard to certain uses which might
9 be reasonable uses within those districts. I heard
10 Mr. Greer speak to that before. I'm sure that
11 other people are likewise effected. To say that a
12 used car dealer has to have five acres I think
13 borders on the ridiculous. To say that a new car
14 dealer has to have five acres I think borders on
15 the ridiculous.
16 The other question, too, is as to how the
17 Board is actually going to treat non -conforming
18 lots which will then be created in these commercial
19( zones. If you're going to say, well, then these
I20 non -conforming lots will automatically be entitled
21 to a variance to allow them to be used for those
22 particular purposes in the commercial zones, well,
23 I'd like to see that. I think it's something that
24 should be brought out and should be considered to
25 avoid the problem of creation of all these
20
1
2
3
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 73
non -conforming lots and the problem of going before
the Zoning Board of Appeals, who feels that it's
4 not their authority to now grant the variance to
5 something which is properly a legislative act,
6
7
which is a zoning, rezoning type of thing.
I don't know these days what the complexion
8 of the Town officials are. I know there is
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
t
17 before a brand new Town Board. I think that this
certainly an election coming up in November. I
think that this probably will wind up going in to
next year and I think it's a good idea for it to go
in to next year. Apparently there is a major
election coming up in the Town, and perhaps the
Town's people should have a say in the next couple
of weeks as to who is now going to vote on the
zoning change. I think it properly should be
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Town Board feels it's doing all the ground work and
all the homework. Let them lay the way for the new
Town Board to act on it, because then that is the --
they're representing the electorate that is going
to speak in the election in November.
I do have a question. I don't know whether
there's anybody that can answer it. One question
25 ; that has come up in my own mind is with such a
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
74!
2 major rezoning and with a great number of people in
3 the Town being effected, I'd like to know whether
4 or not there are any Town officials who have any
5 property within this Town that is also going to be
6 rezoned, and whether or not the Town Board has made
7 a disclosure as to the identities of those
8 officials, where the properties are located, and
9 how their properties are going to be rezoned?
10
11
12
13
14
Lastly, I'd like to speak to the question of
the 2500 square feet of retail space that other
people have spoken to. My office does a great deal
of commercial leasing throughout the southern tier
of the County, and very honestly, there are very,
15 very few areas where one can find tenants who want
16 to rent 2500 square feet other than a large major
17 chain type of tenants. Most of the prevailing
18 stores and the small stores and beauty salons are
19 probably in the thousand square feet to 1500 square
20 foot category. This is the area of emerging
21 business and where the average person, when I'm
22 talking about the average person, I'm saying the
23 average citizen who wants to start a business,
24 where they're going to start out, what they are
25 financially able to rent and what is realistic
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 75
within this particular economy. I think that to
sell a 2500 square foot minimum for a store, not
only is going to cause problems for small existing
shopping plazas within the Town of Wappinger, but
is also going to be unfair to the residents of the
Town of Wappinger who might want to go out on their
own and open up a store, start a retail facility,
try a delicatessen, a shoe store, a beauty store, a
stationary store, anything like that. It is
unrealistic to think that somebody can go in now
with the rents that the retail stores are demanding
and start out with a new business with 2500 square
feet. What you're really doing is you're
encouraging the chains to come in to Wappingers
because they're the ones who want the 2500 square
foot store. They are the ones who demand a minimum
of 5,000 square feet. It's not fair to the
residents of the Town of Wappinger.
I know I will have a chance to speak further
at the next public hearing and I would now allow
the microphone to be taken by the next speaker.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Herman Osten.
MR. OSTEN: Herman Osten; 300 Old Hopewell
1
2 Road, Town of Wappinger. I have 16 acres which is
3 being changed to R-40. The R-40 section that we
4 ' are in now contains mostly homes built on lots less
5 than an acre. We do have water and sewer there.
6 Previously most of the area, I believe, was a half
7 acre. I request that you change our property to
8 half acre zoning. Thank you.
9 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Bud Barnes.
10 MR. BARNES: Good evening. My name is Bud
11 Barnes, life long resident, local businessman, and
12 voting taxpayer of Wappinger and here representing
13 my brother and myself who purchased property in
14 "HB" two, three years ago, and right now it's a
15 non -conforming piece of property. Right now we're
16 not being allowed the use of that property, which
17 is another issue, but I strongly oppose the office
18 zone because it's going to further-- I mean our
19 intent was to die with the building, but the
20 non -conforming use, smaller lot, and we also have a
21 less than 2500 square foot building, it's about
22 1400 square feet. We feel we're going to be
23 further burdened and may be forced to sell it, and
24 you know resale value is going to be next to
25 nothing with office zoning. Thank you. I would
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 76i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 77
strongly oppose it.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: The next name is somewhat
difficult to make out. It looks like it might be
says Z -A -T -S on Route 9D. The next one likewise is
difficult to read also on Route 9D, it looks like
B -A -R -H -E -L -K.
MR. BODRELLA: Good evening. My name is John
Bodrella. I'm a businessman in Town. I represent
Mortgage Corporation of America.
I bought a piece of property on 9D south of
Ketchamtown Road and north of Montclair Apartments.
At the time we bought it, it was listed with a real
estate agency, zoned neighborhood business. Prior
to buying it we went to the Town, met with the
Zoning Administrator, said the zoning was allowed
and to put a bank there we had to go before the
Board for approvals. Prior to that we found
previous space we're going to lease in the Town of
Wappinger so we put the parcel back on the market.
We had a potential buyer, and the reason I found
out about this, the gentleman came before the Town
with the real estate agency and was told the new
map was in place and the property was zoned R-20,
zoned neighborhood business, and I feel putting my
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
company in a bad position, and then putting up some
appropriate cash to purchase the property, it
could be devalued without any kind of notification
is justifiably wrong and I'm requesting that
neighborhood business continues to be allowed in
that parcel. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Yanatelli.
MS. YANATELLI: I'm a property owner in
Wappingers Falls for 27 years. You stated before
the zoning hasn't been updated in fourteen years or
changed.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: In about a dozen to 14.
MS. YANATELLI: Well, what about in 1980, '79
I had a one acre sub -division already proposed and
in '80 you changed it to two acres.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: You're talking about the
general master plan.
MS. YANATELLI: All these changes come about
and it's very difficult for anybody to do anything
in Wappingers because everything keeps changing and
the taxes go up and we don't seem to get any
affordable housing. I offered to do that once and
everybody turned me down on that. And the new
proposed sewer plan, the proposed sewer district,
78
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 79
2 is that anything that you can see is really going
3 to happen?
4 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Yes. We've already
5 created a sewer transmission line, district.
6 MS. YANATELLI: And I notice on the new map
7 that I'm eventually marked out on that area. It
8 goes all around the hill and over the top. For the
9 last ten years we've been going to develop it and
10 you have purposely put us out of the sewer
11 district.
12 I SUPERVISOR PAINO: Where is your particular
13 district?
14 I MS. YANATELLI: Smithtown Road. With the big
15 circle. Surely in doing that --
16 SUPERVISOR PAINO: When the engineer created
17 the sewer district he based it upon drainage
18 basins. That's the only thing I can tell you.
19 MS. YANATELLI: And he's going across the
20 middle of the ridge instead of coming down where
21 j the basin is.
22 SUPERVISOR PAINO: You have to discuss that
23 directly with him. If we could move in to your
24 ± concerns with regard to the zoning.
25 MS. YANATELLI: I just don't think it's going
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 80
2 to work because you're changing, just like my
3 property was changed through zoning from one acre
4 to two acre, you have people that buy things
5
6
7
because they're going to create a business or it's
an investment, and then I don't think you have the
right to arbitrarily come along and just devaluate
8 their property, come along and change it to
9
10
11
12
13
14
anything you want, and you still don't have any
plans for the affordable housing. We had a plan
once before for a mobile home senior citizen park.
Nobody wanted anything to do with it and the people
as you said, that don't keep up with the escalating
price have to move out of the Town and it's a
15 shame. Our taxes keep going up. The land is still
16 vacant and sits there doing nothing. Thank you.
17 I'll be watching this very closely.
18 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Jim Chance. Somebody
19 there by that name on Brown Avenue. Mary Sekely.
20 MS. SEKELY: I pass.
21 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Carl Sekely.
22
MR. SEKELY: My name is Carl Sekely; I live
23 on New Hackensack. According to this proposal you
24 have now you have to have two acres in order to
25 build a house if you're in a non sewer district or
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 81
2 water district. Unfortunately, years ago I bought
3 a piece of land, it's an acre and three-quarters.
4 I bought it for investment so when I retired it's
5 something that I'll have to pack up on. It's an
6 investment, and now you're rendering that piece of
7 ? property more or less useless, and otherwise it
8 s will be a bird and a small animal sanctuary
9 according to your proposals.
10 SUPERVISOR PAINO: How many acres do you have
11 there?
12 MR. SEKELY: An acre and three-quarters, and
13 no way if you go to get-- to sell it or someone to
14 build on it they're not going to let them build on
15 it.
16 MR. VALDATI: The piece of property, it's two
17 acres zoning and you have 1.75 acres?
18 MR. SEKELY: Right.
19 MR. VALDATI: You would have a hardship
20 i placed on you, so you would not be able to develop
21 ' that property without a variance. I don't see how
22 we could deny that variance to develop that
23 property, otherwise, truthfully, you would be
24 i denied the use of the property.
25 i MR. SEKELY: I don't look to develop, but I
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 82
2 look when I retire on selling it with everything I
3
4
5
6
own. And the next party would be the one that
would have to develop on, and that next party is
going to say, no, we don't buy it because it's
going to say two acres.
7 SUPERVISOR PAINO: You'd be virtually
8 guaranteed, as the attorney was saying, virtually
9 guaranteed a variance under hardship case.
10 COUNCILWOMAN SMITH: I don't see how we could
11 guarantee it.
12 MR. SEKELY: That's me. What about the party
13 that wants to buy it?
14 MR. VALDATI: A purchaser would make, offer
15 to purchase that parcel with the contingency that
16 that criterion would be met, and again that would
17 be useless property, that would be confiscatory of
18 the Town to not allow that done since that is the
19 only property in that district of that size and
20 cannot be developed without that variance. It
21 would be a hardship.
22 MR. SEKELY: And where does the tax base now
23 stand on this? It's non homestead and I'm paying
24 double what I paid before it went to non homestead,
25 and now what is it, still going to stay the same
1
2
3
4
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
tax level?
MR. VALDATI: You would have to ask Tom.
MR. WOOD: Well, it's not homestead. Well,
83 I
5 the assessor, if it's in a new zoning district and
6 it's an undersized lot, would take that in to
7 consideration of the assessment. Unless and until
8 it was made in to a building lot it may have a
9 lower value.
10 MR. SEKELY: I don't know. There's something
11 wrong here because what's going to happen, you're
12 talking $300,000 houses between the purchase of a
13 two acre lot and the building of a house.
14 As far as Route 9, the traffic on Route 9, if
15 you coordinated the damn red lights a little better
16 on 9 you wouldn't have the problems you have. You
17 stick a red light by Waldbaums, you got Myers
18 Corners --
19 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Just a minute. First of
20
21
22
23
24
25
all, let's stay with the zoning. Second of all, as
far as the lighting goes on Route 9, the Town
doesn't put up any of those traffic lights, that's
the State.
MR. SEKELY: Well, still the Town could be
influential.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 84
SUPERVISOR PAINO: As a matter of fact, we
have been successful in getting them to coordinate
at least the light at Old Hopewell Road to direct
the traffic a little bit better and also the one
near Myers Corners Road, and any time there are any
malfunctions of that we contact the State.
MR. SEKELY: Then who put the light in by
9 Waldbaums? Who mandates that light?
10 SUPERVISOR PAINO: That's the State highway.
11 MR. SEKELY: Yeah, but that light had to be
12 mandated by the Town.
13 MR. VALDATI: We cannot legislate for the
14 State. We can petition.
15 MR. SEKELY: Because between the distance
16 between that light and Myers Corners, that's where
17 you get one of your jamb ups.
18 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Sir, if you could please
19 confine your comments to the zoning.
20 MR. SEKELY: Well, as far as I read the
21 zoning was based on the traffic problem.
22 SUPERVISOR PAINO: No.
23 MR. SEKELY: Okay. That's all I got to say.
24 SUPERVISOR PAINO: George, it looks like W.
25 Segur.
1 '
2
3
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
MR. SEGUR: I already had spoke.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Robert Tompkins.
4 ( MR. TOMPKINS: Good evening. My name is
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
85 I
Robert Tompkins; I'm a landowner on Route 9. I
object to the proposed "0" zoning mainly because
there appears to be a tremendous lot of office
space in Dutchess County. This appears to be an
attempt by the Town to slow this down. We're going
to end up with a bunch more of empty office space,
and the redefinition of highway business one is
going to take away from the value of the land and
totally restrict. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: James Pratt.
MR. PRATT: I pass.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: George Coughlin.
MR. McCONOLOGUE: I'll pass.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Evana Scianna.
MR. SCIANNA: I pass.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Fred Felter.
(No Response)
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Peter Papula.
MR. PAPULA: They pretty well covered what I
was going to say.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: June Visconti.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 86
MS. VISCONTI; June Visconti; 134 Joan Lane,
Town of Wappinger. I have just three items I'd
like to address.
One, the American dream is the two fold
dream. One is owning your home, the other is the
ability to start your own business. I strongly
8 object to the 2500 square foot requirement. I
9 think that this will preclude many small mama and
10 papa businesses that would get started from even
11 getting started. I feel that the elected officials
12 1 should not be tinkering with the fundamental
13
14
15
American right of law of supply and demand and I
think it should just let it go the way it is and
just let the people be able to start their own
16 businesses.
17 I also object to the fact that there is no
18 economic impact study done on this. As a taxpayer
19
20
21
I would really like to know exactly what this is
going to do to the tax structure of this Town. I
don't need any surprises.
22 Also, I would make a suggestion on the
23 procedural end of it, that in view of hearing some
24 of the landowners having had several different
25 zones put on their pieces of property, once the
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 87
revised plan is made I would strongly recommend
that you could make an overlay of ownership of the
large landowners and see to it that they are all
conforming in one zone rather than have any of
their parcels split. I think that might help a lot
of us. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Rosemary McConologue.
MS. McCONOLOGUE: Good evening. I'm Rosemary
McConologue and I am a resident of the Town of
Wappinger as well as the President of the Wappinger
Central School District Board of Education.
Many of the decisions that you people will be
14 making over the next couple of weeks are
15 have a definite impact on decisions that
Board of Education, are going to have to
over the next couple of months.
18 Our schools are presently either full or very
19 close to maximum. We have recently started a study
to determine where we are going to go with what is
already on the books in various Planning Boards and
things before various Planning Boards. Functional
capacity of schools has changed somewhat in that
mandates have changed on what we can use our
going to
we, in the
be making
20
21
22
23
24 i
25 I schools for and the type of space we need have
1
2
3
4
5
6
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance -
changed the capacities.
I would just like to share with you some of
the figures that impact the Town schools, schools
within the Town of Wappinger and where we're at
with them right now. For example, the building
7 that we're in right now. The functional capacity
8 is 1556. We have 1607 students in Ketcham High
9 School at the present moment. If you go down to
10 Wappinger Junior High School, functional capacity
11 is 730. We have 865 students in Wappinger Junior
12 High School at the present moment. Myers Corners
13 Road Elementary School, the capacity is 836. We
14 have 807 students in Myers Corners Road right now.
15 This is not as bad as some of the things that are
16 happening down on the southern end of the district
17 in Gayhead (Phonetic) and other schools, and we're
18 going to have to address other Town Boards relative
19 to our problem.
20 But, in determining what you are going to do,
21 I would implore you to speak with the school
22 district. Let's keep up the type of discussions
23 we've had. Mr. Levenson has been great in
24 communicating with our liaison Mr. Ponte about what
25 the Town is doing, and us telling him what we're
88
1
2
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 89
doing, and I think we have to continue that type of
3 thing.
4 I also think that the Town has to consider
6 definitely impacts the residents of the Town.
5
the overall picture, and the overall picture
7 We are presently looking at two options, and
8
9
10 1
11
12
13
14
I'm not sure that we're going to have any other,
and that would be to build a new school building or
to add additions onto the building where we are
presently, that we presently have if this growth
continues the way it's continuing right now.
Many people will say here tonight, people
that own property and that type of thing, and
15 rightfully so, that increased growth would raise
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
the tax base in the Town of Wappinger and for the
Wappinger School District. Well, I submit to you
that if we have to build a new school in the Town
of Wappinger it's going to take many years of this
increased tax growth to show any kind of impact on
the taxes, and in the meantime the already over
burdened taxpayers are going to pick up the cost,
23 ! so I would ask you to consider these in your
24 deliberations. Thank you very much.
25 i SUPERVISOR PAINO: That concludes the list of
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 90';,
2 f individuals that have signed in to speak this
3 evening. I would entertain a motion to close the
4 public hearing.
5 COUNCILMAN SMITH: So moved.
6 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Do I have a second?
7 MR. VALDATI: We have another hand.
8 SPECTATOR: I didn't have a chance to speak.
9 Can I speak?
10 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Surely, if you would like
11 to come forward please.
12 SPECTATOR: I'm Isabel --
13 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Excuse me. Could you wait
14 until this gentleman speaks.
15 SUPERVISOR PAINO: Please identify yourself.
16 MR. JORDAN: I am Matt Jordan. I have a
17 building I own on Old Post Road just south of Old
18 Hopewell Road, and it's presently housing my real
19 estate company, Matt Jordan Real Estate.
20 I am here to oppose the changing of the
21 zoning, downgrading on the commercial "HB" to
22 office, not just for me, but I'm speaking for all
23 commercial owners on Route 9 and all roads where
24 commercial tends to be, such as Old Post Road,
25 Albany Post Road, Old Route 9, 9D, and I speak also
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 91
2 as a professional teacher of real estate. I am
3 certified by the State. As you know to be
4 certified by the State you have to have
5 qualifications. As a real estate teacher we teach
6 when you upgrade something you increase the value
7 of properties. Therefore, we have to conclude that
8 when you downgrade the zoning you decrease the
9 value of the properties, and that's a fact that we
10 have to live with in a real estate point of view.
11 I also oppose the 2500 square foot of office
12 space for other reasons. First of all, I do not
13 understand the motivation behind the changing of
14 1
15
16
17
18
the downgrading in commercial. If the motivation
is to reduce traffic, it really doesn't do that.
If we have, for example, one person per hundred
square feet and had 25 people in 2500 square feet,
if there were five different businesses in that
19 2500 square feet we'd still have the same number of
20
21
cars. If the motivation is to reduce the number of
buildings, to reduce traffic, that's unfair again
22 to the property owners who will have hardships such
23 as myself. My office is less than 2500 square
24 feet, and I wouldn't be able to sell it.
25 1 think it's also bad for the homeowners.
1 -Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 92
2 think that the homeowners from a point of view are
3 going to be losing some tax benefits.
4 I spent the day last week in the Town of
5 Wallkill with one of the Town officials who drove
6 me around the major roads and I was amazed at the
7 commercial growth, of the many kind of commercial
8 buildings they had going on there and I predict
9 that Wallkill will be one of the leading town's in
10 the Hudson Valley, and I think the citizens of that
11 Town are going to greatly benefit because it's
12 going to be a tremendous increase to the tax base
13
When you speak to schools which we just
14 heard, we all know that you're not increasing the
15 need for schools, that you are bringing in a lot
16 more taxes for the school systems by having
17 commercial.
18 I also have to agree as a real estate broker,
19 there is an over abundance of office space right
20 now, and also looking at Parados curve, (Phonetic)
21 we all know that to be a curve where only a few
22 percent of the businesses would be large enough to
23 justify 2500 square feet. Therefore, most people
24 would need less than that.
25 Look at it in terms of dollars and cents.
1
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 93
2 You all know space on Route 9 is approaching $20.00
3 per square foot. If you took 2500 square feet and
4 multiplied that out, that's $50,000 a year
5 exceeding $4,000 a month rent. Being a teacher of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
real estate I feel that the average businessman or
lady, of course, cannot afford to pay over $4,000
for office space, so on these grounds I am opposed
to the downgrading of commercial zoning. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Your name and address?
MS. BENAWAY: I'm Isabel Benaway. I have
lived in the Town of Wappinger for 51 years. I
would like to know if any provisions in this zoning
has been made for the young people where they can
have a piece of land with a mobile home on it? I'm
talking about a 55 to $70,000 mobile home. Most of
our young people and elderly are being drove either
across the river or up north where they can put a
nice mobile home on it. Is there any provisions
for this?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: We have kept whatever
23 mobile home parks are in existence.
24
MS. BENAWAY: Everybody doesn't want to live
25 in a park. Have you ever lived in a park? The
4
5
6
7
-Public Hearing/Zoning Ordinance- 94,
rents are as high as apartments right now. I'm
talking about 55 to $70,000 mobile homes. Our
young people are being drove out of the Town of
Wappinger. I think they deserve a lot more, those
that's been born and raised here.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Is there anybody else who
8 came in late and didn't sign up, didn't get an
9 opportunity to speak? If not, we would entertain a
10 motion to close the public hearing?
11 COUNCILWOMAN SMITH: So moved.
12 SUPERVISOR. PAINO: Do I have a second?
13 MR. VALDATI: I second.
14 SUPERVISOR PAINO: All in favor?
15 COUNCILMAN FARINA: Aye.
16 COUNCILMAN VALDATI: Aye.
17 COUNCILWOMAN SMITH: Aye.
18 SUPERVISOR PAINO: We will have a fifteen
19 minute recess before going to the specially
20 scheduled Town Board meeting.
21 (Whereupon the Public Hearing was concluded)
22 at 9:50 p.m.)
23
24
25
95
3
4 C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N
5
6
7
8
9
12
CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE
RECORD OF THE WITHIN PROCEEDINGS AS
TAKEN AND TRANSCRIBED BY ME.
13 Robin E. DiMichele
14 Senior Court Reporter
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25