1979-06-26PHTOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS - STATE OF NEW YORK
IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC HEARING IN RE:
X
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance
and Zoning Map of the Town of Wappinger.
X
PRESIDING:
Louis Dieh
PRESENT:
Wappinger Junior High School
Remsen Avenue
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Tuesday, June 26th, 1979
7:00 o'clock p. m.
Town Supervisor.
Leif Jensen, Councilman
Janet Reilly, Councilwoman
Bernice Mills, Councilwoman
Nicholas Johnson, Councilman
Elaine Snowden, Town Clerk
Allen E. Rappleyea, Esq., Attorney to the Town
25 Market Street
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
BY: Jon H. Adams, Esq., of counsel
HMI
TEN'
' .... V
.011, 12 i1 O
INDEX -1-
1. Councilman Johnson Page 17
2. Al "Skippy" LaCoco 19
3. Ira A. Pergament, Esq. 33
4. Henry Wang 34
5. Eugene F. X. Gilhuly, Esq. 37
6. Robert Rawling 37
7. Edwin Palmatier 39
8. Roy Guarino 40
9. Charles Cortellino 40
10. Johnah Sherman 42
11. Frank Versace 43
12. W.R. Hencke 45
13. Bob Harris 49
14. John Metzger 49
15. Al Kutkau 49
16. Howard Blonder 49
17. Dick Whatham 50
18. Francis Zenner 50
19. Don Kalenowski J0
20. Paul Carlos 50
21. Douglas Rumsey 50
22. Warren Strohm 50
23. Joseph Incornato 53
24. John Sokol 55
25. Charles Cortellino 56
26. Victor Fanuele 57
27. Joseph Landolfi 57
28. Bill Haas 58
29. Victor Fanuele 60
30. Janet Hirkala 61
31. Mike Hirkala 61
32. Bill Haas 63
33. Vincent Ambrosia 65
-2-
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Call the Public Hearing to Order The Town Clerk
will call the role, please.
MRS. SNOWDEN:
Supervisor Diehl?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN:
Mr. Jensen?
COUNCILMAN JENSEN:
Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN:
Councilman Johnson?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN:
Mrs. Mills?
COUNCILWOMAN MILLS:
Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN:
Mrs. Reilly?
COUNCILWOMAN REILLY:
Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN:
All present, sir.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
The Town Clerk will verify to the publication
of tonight's public hearing.
MRS. SNOWDEN:
I offer, for the record, the Affidavit of Public-
ation, and the Affidavit of Posting:
"Please take notice that the Town Board of
the Town of Wappinger will conduct a public hear-
ing at Wappinger Junior High School Cafeteria,
Remsen Avenue, Wappingers Falls, New York, on
Tuesday, June 26th, 1979, at 7:00 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Savings Time, to hear all persons concern-
ing an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and
Zoning Map of the Town of Wappinger.
"The following Ordinance was introduced by
Councilwoman Reilly who move its adoption:
"An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance
and Map of the Town of Wappinger.
"Be it ordained by the Town Board of the Town
of Wappinger pursuant to Article 16 of the Town
Law, as follows:
"Section 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town
of Wappinger, adopted January 29, 1963, and as
amended from time to time is further amendedto
read in accordance with the amended Ordinance
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof
which is incorporated in and made part of this
Ordinance by reference thereto.
"Section 2. The Zoning Map adopted January
29, 1963, as amended from time to time is further
amended in accordance with the attached map which
is incorporated herein by reference thereto.
"Section 3. `'hese amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Wappinger and the Zoning
Map of the Town of Wappinger shall be effective
upon adoption, posting and publication as provided
by Town Law."
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Will the Town Clerk read any correspondence
received from individuals, corporations, firms, or
County or Town Planning Boards.
MRS. SNOWDEN:
We have had some correspondence. We have a
recommendation from the County Planning Board regarding
the proposed zoning ordinance.
"In accordance with the provisions of General
Municipal Law (Article 12B, Sections 239-1 and
239-m), the Dutchess County Department of Planning
has reviewed the proposed zoning revisions with
regard to pertinent inter -community and countywide
considerations. Upon analysis, this Department
makes the following findings:
"1. The proposed zoning ordinance is the
result of an extensive planning program which
provided a detailed analysis of the past and
present structure of the Town and its future
development potential. As a result of this program
the comprehensive master plan was updated and the
Development Plan for the Town was adopted by the
Planning Board. This Developtment Plan establishes
sound guidelines for the growth of the community.
-5-
"2. The land use patterns set forth in the
Town Development Plan recommend a concentration of
high and medium"density residential uses around
the Village and hamlet areas. Lands less suitable
for development because of poor soils, steep slopes,
or the lack of access to centers, are planned for
lower residential densities.
"3. The proposed zoning implements the
recommendations on residential development of the
Development Plan. Lands between Route 9 corridor
and the Towns of LaGrange and East Fishkill are
proposed for decreasing densities as the distance
from Wappingers Falls Village and Route 9 increases.
Residential zoning between Route 9 corridor and
the Hudson River follow a similar pattern of
concentrating densities around the Villand and
hamlet areas.
"4. Several mechanisms are provided in the
proposed zoning to enhance the character of devel-
opment in the Town. The Average Density
Subdivision and Conservation Subdivision generally
allow a flexible pattern of residential development
with no overall increase in density. The Planned
Unit Development District encourages a balanced
combination of residential and non-residential
uses. The proposed PUD zoning, however, does not
stipulate the mix of uses nor is an open space
and recreation requirement established.
11 5•
The proposed commercial zoning differs
substantially from the Development Plan. Areas
along Routes9 and 9D would provide a pattern of
strip commercial development which is contrary
to the intent of the Town Development Plan.
Development along Routes 9 and 9D corridors has
important countywide and intermunicipal, as well
as municipal, impacts. "_'his type of strip
commercial zoning weakens existing retail centers
and creates hazardous traffic conditions along
these major roads. The clustering of commercial
activity holds down the use of the automobile for
retail shopping and reduces the use and costs of
energy.
"6.
The proposed commercial zoning in these
areas is contrary to the Town Development Plan as
well as Dut chess County's "Concept for Growth".
The Development Plan recommends that 310 acres be
set aside for commercial use. This could accommo-
date over 2,000,000 square feet of retail building
space. Standards established for commercial activ-
ity indicate that the size and type of retail space
provided for in the Town Development Plan could
serve a population of several hundred thousand.
people. The excess of proposed commercially
zoned land far exceeds this and would thus serve
no purpose and have an adverse impact on the
vitality of the existing economic base of the
community.
?17. The proposed permitted uses in the High-
way Business Zones include a variety of commercial
uses, some of which are not highway oriented.
Uses should be differentiated in order to include
those businesses appropriate to locational require-
ments.
"Recommendations: In view of the above
findings, the Dutchess County Department of
Planning makes the following conclusions and
recommendations:
-7 -
'The residential zoning pattern generally rel-
ates to the land usage recommended in the Town
Defelopment Plan and Dutchess County's "Concept
for Growth". 'Phis patter establishes a concent-
ration of high and medium density residential uses
around the Village and hamlet areas. Lands less
suitable for development because of poor soils and
slopes are established for development at lower
densities. The decision on these matters should
be based upon local study of the facts.
"The Department recommends disapproval of
the following proposed commercial zones:
"1. The proposed Highway Business Zone
(HB -2A) at the soutwest corner of Route 9 and Old
Hopewell Road and continuing along Route 9 to
North Fowlerhouse Road;
"2. The Highway Business Zone (HB -2A) on
the northeast corner of the intersection of
Route 9 and Old Hopewell Road;
"?
jo
The Highway Business Zone (HB -2A) on
the east side of Route 9 from McFarland Road
continuing south to Old Route 9;
"4. The Neighborhood Business Zone along
both sides of Route 9D from the Montclair Apartments
to Stoneykill Road.
"This Department recommends that the Highway
Business Zone on the east side of Route 9, north
of New Hackensack Road be reduced with an estab-
lished northerly boundary opposite Mesier Avenue.
"This Department, further, recommends that
the permitted uses in the commercial districts
be modified to include a difference in the uses
allowed in the various commercial zones. The
-8 -
The proposed usis in the Highway Business Zones
permit various types of business development,
whether or not they are highway oriented. Thus,
the difference between the commercial districts is
one of degree, rather than of substance. Commercial
establishments along highways should be limited to
those uses which are appropriate for highway
business.
"The proposed zoning includes recreational
use developments as a special permitted use in
residential districts. In view of the board def-
inition of this use it is recommended that more
specific locational criteria be added to assist in
the decision-making process. This Department
recommends that "places of amusement or recreation"
be disapproved as a special permitted use in the
Airport Industry and Planned Industry Zones.
While park and playground uses are appropriate
throughout the Town, larger scale, intensive,
commercial recreation activities should be
concentrated in or near areas planned for higher
densities of population and along major traffic
artieries for con venient access.
"This Department recommends that the provisions
of the Planned Unit Development District be modified
to include a regulated mix of residential and non-
residential uses within the PUD District; that is,
the amount of non-residential space permitted
should be specified and related to the number of
residential units to be constructed.. It is also
recommended that an Open Space and Recreation.
requirement be included for each Planned Unit
Development.
"This Department recommends that the Planned
Industry District located off All Angels Road,
south of Lake Oniad, and the Planned Industry
District on Myers Corners Road, opposite Fenmore
Drive, be reduced to include only existing uses
or disapproved. Industry and office research land
uses would be more appropriately located on or near
the Route 9 corridor which provides better access
-- an important industrial location factor.
"It is recommended that the following clarif-
ications and corrections be made int he text of
the proposed ordinance:
"1. In paragraph 411.5 and. 411.6, the refer-
ence should read "Section 460" instead of "Section
445".
"2. Paragraphs 434, 442.521 and 603 should
be changed to more accurately reflect the wording
of Section 239m of New York State Law as regards
the review procedures for the County Planning
Department. The words "abuts" and "abutting"
should be changed to "within 500 feet of".
"3
In Section 421, column 2 (Permitted
Principal Uses), a line should be drawn after
number 19 to differentiate the permitted uses in
the R -NF -3 and R -MR -5 districts from the one
family residence district uses.
"The Dutchess County Department of Planning
does not presume to base its decision on the
legalities or illegalities of the facts or proced-
ures enumerated in subject zoning action"
This letter, dated June 25, 1979, was signed by
Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner of the Dutchess County
Department of Planning., and Richard Birch, Senior Planner.
-10 -
We also have received a letter from the Town of Wa.
Wappinger Planning Board, dated. June 19th, 1979, ^nd is
addressed to the Town Board members, with reference to
the May 29th, 1979 proposed zoning ordinance and map.
"At their June 18th, 1979 meeting, the
members of the Planning Board discussed the
above -captioned referral and this letter is
to advise you that the Board has no objection
to the text of the proposed zoning ordinance.
"With regard to the proposed zoning map,
the Planning Board wouldlike to recommend the
following changes:
"1. -P Zone for two acre parcel of Chelsea.
Ridge Associates on Route 9D (presently zoned LP)
as this parcel has received site plan approval
for an enclosed shopping mall and the Board does
not feel this should become a non -conforming
parcel. (Shown on proposed map as R. -TT -5)
"2. HB -1 Zone for properties of Chemical
Bank, Jack Davis and Power Test as the adjacent
properties are so zoned. The Board does not
understand whi this particular area is zoned
HB -2. (Shown on proposed map as HR -2)
"3. HB -1 Zone for properties from Osborne
Hill Road to Hopewell Road for a depth of 300
feet on both sides of Route 9. (Shown on proposed
map as R-20, HB -2 and OR -10A)
"The Planning Board would like to thank you
in advance for your consideration of their
recommendations.
"Members present at the June 18th, 1979
meeting: Victor L. Fanuele, Donald J. Keller,
ftw
follows:
-11-
George Brannen, Dr. Harvey Miller; Members
absent: Virginia Keeler, James V. Porter, and
James Mills."
This letter was signed by Mrs. Betty -Ann Russ,
Secretary to the Town of Wappinger Planning Board.
We have other correspondence, from Philip Dominicus
of 26 Fulton Street, Wappingers Falls, and proprietor
of Li'L Darling Shoppe, Imperial Plaza, which reads as
"I would appreciate the following statement
be read into the minutes at the Town Board
meeting on zoning, slated for June 26th, 1979.
"That I am in total concurrence with the
recommendation of the Planning Board, in a
letter dated June 19th, that all properties from
Osborne Hill Road to Hopewell Road be zoned HB -1,
commercial use."
There's a liter from the Lakeoniad Realty Company
which is dated June 20th, 1979, which reads as follows:
"We are the owners of a parcel of land located
in the Town of Wappingers, located at the end of
Ervin Drive and fronting Spook Hill Road, known
as Map 4+5, Blcok 1, Lot 2.1.
"The parcel consists of approximately 90
acres of vacant land. The present zoning of the
parcel is one-half acre, residential The proposed
zoning for our parcel is one acre.
"Approximately five years ago, a preliminary
approval on this property was given to the developer
(Lehigh Corporation) for the subdivision of the
-12 -
property. Fecause of financial difficulties, the
developer did not ask for an extension of the
preliminary approval. We intend to develop the
parcel and to build single family homes. Water
and sewer is at the property. rflo the best of our
know knowledge, our parcel is the only one in this
area zoned one-half acre.
"The cost of building new homes, especially
the cost of land improvement, is very high, and
the change of the zoning to one acre lots will
be prohibitive to the development of this parcel.
"It will be financially unfeasible to build
homes on one acre parcels. The cost of constructed
homes would be out of range of middle class persons.
"It is out opinion that the interest of the
community -- especially for young couples looking
to acquire residences -- is to leave our parcel
at the present zoning, namely at one-half zoning.
Further, the existing home owners are paying very
high rates for water and sewer. The addition
of new homes will substantially lower the burden
now carried by the home owners in this area.
"We are ready to immediately start the
development of our parcel if one-half acre
zoning will remain.
"Please read this letter at the public
hearing to be held on June 26th, 1979.
"We would like to ask to make this letter
part of the public hearing.
'We again would like to ask not to change
the zoning, and to leave the parcel zoned as
one-half acre.
This letter was signed by Nathan L. Spells of
-13-
LakeOniad Realty Corporation.
There is another letter, from L. Richard
Rosenberg of Chelsea Ridge Associates, dated June
14th, 1979, addressed to Lou Diehl, Supervisor, which
reads as follows:
"We wish to voice our concern that the
proposed new zoning map for the Town of Wappinger
has omitted our local business zone from the
proposed map. As I had previously indicated to
you on the phone, we have obtained a building
permit for the construction of the Chelsea Ridge
Mali and feel that in light of our long standing
plans, and efforts to bring this Mall into exist-
ence, that by causing it to become an immediate
non -conforming use will work an undo hardship upon
us and the businesses that are planning to locate
in the Mall.
"If you recall, the creation of this local
business zone originally was favorably recommended
by both the County Planning Board and the Town of
Wappinger's Planning Board, and of course, the
Town Board.
"I assume this omission on the proposed
zoning map will be amended to properly include
our local business classification."
Another letter, from the Town of Fishkill Planning
Board, and former Southern Dutchess Joint Planning Group,
signed by Ronald C. Brown, Chairman, dated June 19, 1979.
"The Town of Fishkill Planning Board together
with the Fishkill Town Board has reviewed the
-114 -
subject April 1979 revision to your Town of
Wappinger Proposed Zoning Ordinance, a copy of
which you have forwarded to the Town of Fishkill.
"As stated in our comments of July 1, 1976
and June 26, 1975, regarding your March 1975
revision, we take exception to your proposed zon-
ing along Route 9 from Myers Corners Road southward
to the Fishkill line. The predominance of HB -1A
and HB -2A zoning will permit commercial strip
zoning for practically the entire extent of Route
9 in the Town of Wappinger from Myers Corner Road
southward. This is con trary to the Area Develop-
ment Plan adopted by resolution on June 6, 1973
following three years of joint studies, hearings
and expenditures by the five communities, of
your Town, the Town of Fishkill, the Villages of
Fishkill and Wappingers Falls, and the City of
Beacon, and known as the Southern Dutchess Joint
Planning Group. The resolution was made by Mr.
Steinhaus, then Chairman of your Planning Board,
seconded by Mr. 'Allier, then Supervisor of the
Townof Fishkill, and adopted unanimously by the
representatives of the five municipalities present
and involved. The so adopted Area Development Plan
indicates high and medium density residential zon-
ing along the above section of Route 9. Neighbor-
hood Shopping, your NB zone, is indicated along
Old Route 9 above its entrance into the Town of
FishkilL
"We wish our exceptions to be read at your
public hearing on June 26, 1979, and made a part
of the minutes thereof for consideration in amend-
ing your proposed Ordinance to more closely comply
-15 -
with the Area Development Plan and your Town
Development Plan as it was adopted prior to June
1975."
We received another communication, this evening,
from MegTam Corporation, dated June 26, 1979, and reads
as follows:
"Your records will indicate that this
corporation owns a tract of land consisting of
186 acres situated along the Souther edge of the
Town, bounded by Old Route 9 and Smithtown Road.
Your records should further indicate that since
1975 we have sought to have this property properly
zoned for the purpose of retaining the present
usage of the property and continue to develop the
property for its most productive use.
"For your information: From the day we have
purchased the land to date there have been no
complaints ever lodged against our use, or mis-use
of the property.
"We respectfully call your attention to the
fact that on July 23, 1975 your Board was askdd
to change the zoning to permit a lawful use by us
of the property, this was granted. Originally we
had asked that this land be zoned for Planned
Industry, but never as a one acre basis. We would
now ask that this property be zoned GB.
"In our letter to your of February 26, 1976
the following was stated: 'Reference is also made
to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, revised December
1975. This ordinance proposes to rezone the Megtam
Property to PI -1A. The effect of this is to permit
any non-residential use as provided under OR -10A
-1.6-
for "Permitted Principal Uses" and substantially
restricts the "Permitted Accessory Uses" as com-
pared to OR-10A.
'The history of the Megtam Property is outlined
in our previous letter. In 1969 development of the
industrial park was started and the first building
constructed to accommodate a combination storage
and warehouse business as well as a transportation
terminal. The proposed rezoning would make such
uses "non-conforming". In order to avoind the
restrictive "non-conforming" use category, it would
be necessary to add to "Permitted Principal Uses"
(1) Transportation Terminals; (2) Storage and
Warehouse Business. The "permitted Principal Uses"
would also be expanded to include items three
through nine as provided under OR-10A of the
proposed zoning ordinance.
'We request that the zoning of the Megtam
Property be allowed to remain as it now is, prior
to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, a Planned Indust-
rial Zone. Tf this is not feasible, the suggested
changes mentioned above would accomplish almost the
same objective.'
"We have been advised that thb zoning law at
the present time is being construed most strictly.
It is for this reason that we are making this appli-
cation again in order that we can protect our
vested rights in the property and continue to be a
good neighbor and taxpayer."
This letter, received this evening, was signed
by Megtam Corporation President, Archie R. Hansen. And,
attached to that letter is their letter of July 23rd, 1975.
-17 -
This is all of the correspondence concerning this
Public Hearing, which I have received.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Thank you, Mrs. Snowden. Now, before we open this
public hearing open to the public, I want to announce
that there are copies of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance
and Map, at the front table here. Also, the Chairman
of the Committee for the Revision of the Zoning Ordinance
and Zoning Map, Councilman Johnson, has requested that
he be permitted to make some comments prior to opening
this to the audience. Councilman Johnson, with
Councilwoman Reilly, and others, worked on this proposal.
Mr. Johnson?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
In trying to bring forward the comprehensive
zoning ordinance for the Town, some of the folks who
worked on the original drafts saw a great deal of
similarity between what was proposed years ago, and now.
We found, as changes were introduced, and made those
changes, those changes eventually brought us full
circle in many instances. We expect that there will
be technical reviews, and I will repeat that, "technical
reviews" of the ordinance, the words, and the map,
because no matter how many times you go over it, and
check it, it is hard to pick a line to know exactly
-1$ -
where it is to be without looking at the blown -up maps,
etbetera, and anybody who speaks this evening who has
a specific situation that they would like to bring to
our attention, we will ask
it, please submit it to us
as accurate as possible in
requests. If it turns out
that after you tell us about
in writing, so
examining your
we can be
specific
to be a philosophical
difference, we would ask that you try to put it down
in writing. And, if you are writing notes now, for
when you speak, please submit it to us so we can
review it the way you want it to be reviewed, the
way you want them to be read. But, mostly, we are
interested to know if there are any specific situations
and if so, try to identify the specific piece of prop-
erty, so when we do the technical review, using the
minutes of this meeting, and what you may submit, we
will have all of the information, and we will be able
to review it properly, and give it the proper consider-
ation it deserves. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Thank you. Now, this Public Hearing is open to
the audience. All we ask is that you speak loudly
so we can all hear, state your name, and your address,
and the location of the parcel of property to which you
will be referring. And, if you are representing someone
-19 -
else, please identify them. Please, speak loud enough
for the secretaries, and the reporter, can hear your
comments, and record them.
Yes, sir?
MR. LaCOCO:
Al LaCoco. My friends call me "skippy". I am
a licensed Citizen Band operator and a licensed
Amateur Radio operator, licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission. There are two items in
the zoning ordinance that are of concern to the CB
operators and the Amateur Radio operators, and I would
like to make a public statement about it, and it
concerns -- I don't know if you call it an article or
section of the ordinance, but it's number 414 --
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
You're referring to Article 414?
MR. LaCOCO:
Yes. It's entitled "Projecting Features Above
Roof Level". I would like to make a statement about
that. Then, I would like to ask some questions, and
if you would permit, I would also like to make a short
demonstration, which would concern Article 483.7, that
is if the Board feels it is not disruptive, and then
follow that with some comments and statements, if the
format is okay with the Board, I will proceed.
-20-
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
How long will you go one?
MR. LaCOCO:
I don't know. Fifteen or twenty minutes. Partly,
it's dependent on the answers I receive.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Let's try to limit it to ten minutes, because
we have a room of people.
MR. LaCOCO:
I'll try to do that.
Now, first I would like to start with Section 414
"Projecting Features Above Roof Level". Citizen Band
Radios and Amateur Radio Operators are governed by
Part 95.437 as far as CB antennae are concerned, and
Part 97.45 as far as Amateur Radio Operators are con-
cerned. mhese are Federal Communication- Commission's
regulations, as well as other acts and regulations,
going back to 1969, like the Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, in terms of ecological consideration; and
in addition they have to comply with the requirements
of the FAA and Form 7460-1 which has to do with inter-
ference with aviation and nagigation. So, there are
certainly plenty of rules and regulations governing
heights of antennae. In reading this ordinance, I am
puzzeled as to what it tells me. So, my first question
-21-
to the Board --
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
I would like to interrupt -- did you give a local,
Wappingers Falls, address? Or, are you representing
someone, or some group?
MR. LaCOCO:
I'm definitely living at 4+1 Kretch Circle,
Wappingers Falls.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Thank you-
MR. IaCOCO:
One question, then, is what limitations are placed
on roof-mounted CB or Amateur transceiving antennae,
according to the ordinance?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
None.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
One Board Member said twenty feet.
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Twenty feet? It does not say twenty feet okay
it does.
MR. LaCOCO:
Is that from the ground or from the highest point
of the roof?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
-22-
From the highest point of the roof.
MR. LaCOCO:
So, the second question, then, is what about free
standing antennae, not mounted on a building?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Same rule.
MR. LaCOCO:
In other words the height over the roof level
applies whether it is mounted on the roof, or on the
ground, is that true?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
That's my present interpretation.
MR. LaCOCO:
Do you see my problem?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Yes.
MR. LaCOCO:
Next question, is what do you feel the limitations
should be, baeed on the given purpose of the ordinance
as stated by the first paragraph: "For the purpose of
promoting the health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community ..."
why does the Town wish to limit the height of Citizen
Band and Amateur Radio operators' antennae. What is the
intent of the limitation in height? Do you feel it is
-23 -
unsafe, unsightly, or what? You know, we could apprec-
iate your restrictions better if we knew why you have
it. Or is it that you don't like antennae? What is it?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
I can not answer that at this time. If you would
explain all this, and ask your questions, in writing,
we could then more fully answer the questions.
COUNCILMAN JENSEN:
Nobody is picking on the CB'ers. That would be
ridiculous.
MR. LaCOCO:
T wasn't suggesting that. I'm not saying that.
I am asking the question of what the intent was.
COUNCILMAN JENSEN:
It sounded like it.
MR. LaCOCO:
I'm sorry. But, what is the intent of the
restrictions?
COUNCILMAN JENSEN:
Fm some conformity for antennae above the roof
lines of the Town. You've noted your objection, it's
been recorded, and that's the reason for holding the
public hearing. It will be given due consideration.
MR. LaCOCO:
I'm trying to understand it. If I understood it
-24-
-- if I understood why you have the restrictions, then
I might be able to respond to it.
COUNCILMAN JENSEN:
That's the purpose of the public hearing.
MR. LaCOCO:
It's not just the CB'ers! I'm talking also for
the CB'ers, but also for the Amateur Radio operators;
and any regulations that we have to comply with will
have to apply to both, or it will not stand, because
you'll then be discriminatory. The question then is
why are you limiting the height, and you've answered
that by saying "uniformity of height". Then, I'll
ask, instead, why not have it at three hundred feet
instead of twenty feet?
COUNCILWOMAN REILLY:
It would be unsightly.
MR. LaCOCO:
Then, the next question is, is it within the
Zoning Board's province to regulate for asthetic
reasons, the height of apertinances, on the property?
COUNCILWOMAN REILLY:
Yes.
MR. LaCOCO:
I have with me I belong to the American Radio
Relay League, and they deal with this type of thing
-25 -
frequently.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
We are more interested in hearing your recommend-
ations, and why you would recommend other than twenty
feet. Otherwise we'll end up going around and around
all night.
MR. LaCOCO:
Fine with me. I don't want to go around and around
all night either.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Also, what I think we would be interested in is
why you object to twenty feet. Also, what is reasonable
and acceptable to you. Let's get to the point.
MR. LaCOCO:
I think that both CB and Amateur Radio provide
public services, and I know many of you have opinions
about what CB radios or Amateur Bands may be in terms
of "rag chewing" and silly conversations, etcetera; rut
there is a much more important good -- good work that
is going on in both areas. We've a member here tonight
from REACT, I think -- yes, he's here -- who may wish
to speak about the Citizen Bands, but I can tell you
that they provide a means of communications for highway
emergency all over the Southern Tier of the State of New
York. And, the benefits accrue not only to the people
-26-
having them, but to almost everybody. If you're stuck
on the road, and you're not within walking distance of
communications, and help arrives, it's probably because
a CB'er saw the situation, and radioed for help.
Amateur Radio has more far-reaching public service
implications. There are other people here tonight who
can also speak on that, who may be more eloquent than
I am; but a simple description of the benefits of
Amateur Radio is provided by emergency communications.
Many people say that we are Civil Defense Radio
Stations, we are that too; but it is the amateurs like
myself who operate and man the equipment that belongs
to the Civil Defense, in conjunction with their own
equipment, -some battery operated in case of total
electric failure. In addition there are phone patches
which is a service offered to servicemen, overseas, to
be able to talk to their families, by radio and telephone
hookups. These are just some of the services provided.
But, if we were limited in height to twenty feet,
we would not be able to provide these services. These
services, in particular the phone patch for the overseas
servicemen, which requires use of the 20 meter band --
that's the length of the wave, 20 meter, which is sixty
feet. Because of physical reasons, science and physics,
the height'necessary for these antennae needs to be
-27-
between fifty and seventy-five feet above the ground,
it would be impossible to provide the phone patch
serivice to any place, let alone China, with antennae
less then fifty feet above the ground.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Fifty feet above the ground?
MR. LaCOCO:
Yes, sir. It's because of physics. It's ruled
by the ground, not the housetops. It's electrical
ground, and it's not always level with the surface of
the earth.
There are two other things I would like to mention.
And, some of the other people here may wish to elabor--
ate on some other facets of it, because Amateur Radio
is a many faceted endeavor. Two of them are emergency
service and the phone patch.
If I might, I would like to read from an article
-- it's about twenty words, or so, an example of what
it might do. It's about a thirteen year old from
California who heard a distress call from a fishing
boat seventy-five miles awaythat was in trouble,
northwest of Jamaica -- that's seventy-five miles
northwest of Jamaice, rather, which had a whole in
its hull. They were attempting to contact the Coast
Guard, but couldn't, but this thtteen yearold heard
-28
the distress call, contacted the local Coast Guard and
they contacted the Miami Coast Guard, and since neither
had amateur band capabilities, he was the only one in
contact with the boat. They did rescue those on the
vessel, but think of what would have happened without
the amateur band capabilities.
This ds the type of story, which happens quite
frequently, where the amateur band radios come into
play. And, if you were to read any of a number of
CB or Amateur Radio magazines, you would see this type
of story more and more each month.
The point I am making is that they should be
permitted in the Town of Wappinger. Put, if you limit
the antennae height to twenty feet, over roof line,
then no one would be able to operate.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Thank you sir.
MR. LaCOCO:
I would also like to comment on Article or Section
483.7 entitled "Electromagnetic Interference". And,
this is where the demonstration I mentioned earlier
would come in, if you would permit it, because whoever
wrote it is quite naive, since it is not consistant
with the laws of physics.
-29 -
For your information I would like to recite a list
of some of the sources of interference producing electric
motors, which causes electromagnetic interference.
These are everyday, common, household items, such as
sewing machines, radios, televisions, alarms, and other
dozens of motors, you are familiar with. And, there are
also radio receivers, and radio transmitters which cause
electromagnetic interference. These radios include
those used by police and fire departments, as well as
air craft. And, the thing we're trying to protect,
broadcast reception, is done with transmitters. And,
these transmitters themselves cause interference. The
message answering service used by doctors, is another
cause for electromagnetic interference. Maybe the Town
would like to turn off the sun, since the sun also causes
interference. Also, there will be a problem in determin-
ing where the interference comes from, whether it comes
from the sun, or some other source, like a car's
ignition system. Are we prepared, as a town, to
determine the source of the interference? Lightening
also causes, interference, as well as the aurora borealis,
the northern lights. One interesting thing about Article
483.7 is the lack of definition of terms, at the begin-
ning of the proposed ordinance. There are many many
terms and definitions in the beginning of the proposed
-30-
ordinance, but none of the terms contained in this
particuler portion are to be found in the ordinance.
Yet, the FCC feels that this particular area is some-
thing that comes under their jurisdiction. They send
out notices, stating "this is a nbtice from the Federal
Communications Commission" which they dispense when
there are problems with radio interference. Local
laws regulating radios may be preempted by the Communic-
ations Acts, and it goes on to cite the Communications
Act of 1934; and complaints that they have gotten from
people about CB's and Amateur Radios -- the important
thing is what the FCC has to say about interference.
Ninety percent of the interference complaints come to
the FCC are due to the fact that the receiving equipment
is at fault, and is not selective enough. This radio,
for instance, that I have here [INDICATING] if I were
to stand in front of a police station, and turned it
on, and listened to WKIP, you would hear the police
radio's transmisons because of this radio, which is an
unmodified, directly from the shelf radio, and it can
receive the police transmissions. Are they doing
something illegal? I seriously doubt it. And, my
opinion is that there is no place, and no wording at all
which belongs in the zoning ordinance that discusses
this type of interference.
-31-
Now, if the Town would like to do something about
handling the complaints, what should be done is to form
an interference committee, and the amateurs in the area
-- and they are competent, and have the technical equip-
ment -- could resolve the problems, or help you resolve
them. They would receive the complaints, try to find
out the source of the interference, and try to rectify
it. This ordinance has come to the conclusion before
it ever -- before the first person was even brought
up under the ordinance with a violation, and it comes
to the conclusion, that if you hear me on the radio,
I am at fault, and I have to stop transmitting. That
is absurd. The receiving equipment may not be selective
enough to eliminate, and discriminate between me and
some other transmission.
The bottom line is to remove that portion' from
the ordinance, or whatever you wish to call it, from
the ordinance. Remove Article 483.7, and do something
constructive for us. We could probably help the Town
out. I know, I for one, would do that. I would be
happy to visit anyone's home in Wappingers Falls who
feels that they have TVI, or radio interference.
Frequently, the problem is found in the phonograph,
stereo, or amplifier, or tape deck, or whatever. I
would help show them how to modify their equipment and
correct the problem, and eliminate that interference.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
If you could summarize all that for us, in writing,
and add your conclusions and any recommendations you
wish, we will study it, along with the written record.
MR. LaCOCO:
Thank you for listening.
One more thing, about the demonstration
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
I'll tell you, Skip, you've impressed me. I don't
know if we need more information or not.
MR. LaCOCO:
The point of the demonstration is that even a
receiver emits transmissions, and a receiver is a
transmitter by itself, and it transmits radio signals
making it impossible to discriminate between one and
aother, and that even a receiver can transmit and
interfere with another receiver.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Thank you, Mr. LaCoco, Skip.
Continuing with the first row, then? Yes, sir?
Your name, and address, if if applicable, who you are
representing.
MR. PERGAMENT:
Ira Pergament, I'm an attorney, representing Dr. and
-33 -
Mrs. Wang, Henry and Lynn Wang, who recently purchased
property known as Sunset Knolls Trailer Park and Tourist
home, which is now designated HB -1; and under the prop-
osed ordinance of April 1979, the property will be
designated OR -10A, Office Research, ten acres. My
first comment is that not only is Dr. Wang's property
being rezoned, but all of the other properties located
within that zone, none of them are ten acres. Therefore,
you would be, as the zoning proposal becomes the zoning
ordinance, effectively foreclosing property owners
within that proposed
and all present uses
uses, and subsequent
zone from utilizing their property
would be reduced to non -conforming
restrictions on further develop-
ment would ensue. For a practic.1 matter, also,
property is located on the east side of Route 9,
Old Hopewell Road, is not suited or intended
for
that
from
use
as proposed. Route 9 is a heavily travelled highway
and has distractions, and I believe that you would
not want research there. You want quiet and tranquility
for research, not the hustle and bustle of heavy traffic.
I believe, when the hearing opened, and the letters
were read, that I heard correctly, that the Town of
Wappinger's Planning Board also recommends that this
property, located on the east side of Route 9, north
from Osborne Hill Road, which is proposed to be zoned
-34-
R-20 or OR -10A, and HB -1A be placed in the HB zone.
So, your own experts in the Town of Wappinger feel that
the proposal is wrong here, the same way we do.
In addition, I have one other, further comment.
The Town of Fishkill sent this Board a letter saying
that the zoning on Route 9 from Myers Caner Road, south
should not be Highway Business, but rather residental.
And, 1 think that a year or two ago the Town of Fishkill
also went through re -zoning, and they had proposed.
that property on either side of. Route 9, especially
from Route 52 south to the County Line, be re -zoned
from commercial to residential. However, when they had
it put to public hearings, and they heard the comments
of the populace, they changed their minds, and made it
back into commercial zones. T think the proper zone
for this particular parcel of property is as presently
zoned, which is Highway Business.
T will certainly address a letter to Councilman
Johnson, and Councilwoman Reilly, on this.
Thank you.
I think Dr. Wang, himself would like to address
the Board too.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Dr. Wang, you have some questions, or comments?
DR. WANG:
-35-
Thank you. Mr. Pergament represents me, but I
still have some comments I would like to say, and ask
some questions. If you go over the zoning on Route 9,
you'll see it is really only suited for business zoning.
If you were to go over it, you would see it is only
business zoning concentrated on Route 9, but Route 9
is busy, and everybody knows that. my land which I
just bought, and I paid commercial price for it, a high
price, and also the former owners, Charlie Johnson, he
was in the business, and still is in the business for
27 years; and we pay business taxes, almost $30,000.00
for the property. But, if you look at the map, all
proposed zoning along Route 9 is shopping centers; all
along Route 9, tut under present zoning my land and my
neighbor's are Highway Business, one acre, but you want
to change it, to OR-10A. You want to kill our land.
We will lose money, and our property. But the Town
will also lose money.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
All of this will be considered. It is very
possible that that last line drawn there, was drawn
slightly off. We will definitely look it over, and
re-evaluate the situation. There is a question that
the line may have been moved, and is not shown correctly
on the map. We realize that it was previously Highway
* Dr. Wang spoke with an accent, and he might have said
"If I lose the business ..." instead of what's transcribed.
-36-
Business, and now it's scheduled to be re -zoned to
Office Research. We will look it over. This is one
of the questionable cases that we were aware of. Your
attorney will address that to us, in a letter, and it
is in the record, that you've objected to the re -zoning,
and why.
DR. WANG:
I appreciate the Board Members considering that
for myself. /I lost a business in the Town of Wappinger
Falls, and the Town will lose.
This is the best'business area, and OR -- Office
Research is really not good there. Who would build an
office on three acres? How can you have an office
there?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
We understand what you are saying, Doctor, and
we will look into it.
DR. WANG:
I want the Town Board to consider this, to not
take away our property. I'm from a Communist Country
where they took property away from me, and now the Town
of Wappinger wants to.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
No, Doctor. You will have all due consideration
given to your situation, I assure you will have all due
-37 -
consideration given to you.
DR. WANG:
Thank you, very much.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Continuing, then, with the same row? Yes, sir?
Your name, and address, and who you represent, if you
do?
MR. GILHULY:
Eugene Gilhuly. I am an attorney representing
MegTam Corporation. I thank you for being gracious
enough to accept and read the letter submitted this
evening. The only thought I have to add is that I
don't think we should go into the letter since it
speaks for itself, but we would request a change of
the designation to General Business, or give those
qualifications in permitted uses under the General
Pusiness section to that area being used now technic-
ally and properly, as General Business. It is down
there on the map, at the bottom, near the crease.
Its uses will be non -conforming, and will be denying
us the right to conduct business there.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Yes, Mr. Rawlings?
MR. RAWLINGS:
-38 -
Robert Rawlings. I own Robert's Running Creek
Mobile Home Park, Montford Road, Wappingers Falls. I
think -- many times, when I think about zoning I get
negative. But, for once, I want to thank you, and
presumably it's two individuals, Mrs. Reilly and Mr.
Johnson, who were involved in the development of this
most recent re -zoning plan. I think, at least in terms
of mobile home section of the plan, that you have done
a good job. It is quite comprehensive.
But, I do have a question, which I would like to
address to you, now. In terms of the mobile home
section of the proposed ordinance, Section 443, whould
any part of the ordinance pertain to existing mobile
home parks?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Councilman Johnson's indicated to me that he will
have to check that out.
MR. RAWLINGS:
Carry it one step further, then, does it pertain
to new developments?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
If there is a specific question, submit it in
writing to the Board.
MR. RAWLINGS:
Okay. Rather than going into all that here, I will
-39 -
submit it, in writing, to the Town Clerk.
That's all I have to say.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Continuing, then --
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Generally it applies to new ones, but not you as
an operator, to change your present mobile park to
conform to those provisions. Is that your question,
sir? Is that what you're asking?
MR. RAWLINGS:
Yes.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Allright. Continuing, then, your name sir?
MR. PALMATIER:
Edwin Palmatier. My property is next to Sunset
Knolls, and also always has been HB, as far as I know.
I pay commercial taxes on it now, and you want to
change it to ten acres. I don't have ten acres. So
I object to the change.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
That appears, certainly, to be one of the problems.
Please, sen us a letter on it, and it will be considered.
There is a question as to the lines there because it is
the same thing on Old Route 9. We are familiar with it.
Continuing?
-40-
i,'IR . GUARINO:
Roy Guarino, ^.11 Angels and Route 82. ve have
gone through the same thing, the same way. We've got
eight acres of land, which has always been zonedfor
business, and last time you hadit left as business
but now it's been cut, again, part is local business
and the rest is residential. Since the last time I
was here, T was told that it would stay that way, and
I am in the process of buying some from the Town on
Route 82, which is fifty by one hundred, so I can put
a business on that, for my retirement, which is now.
That is my objection. I know, I should write a letter
to the Town about it.
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Yes, please, with specifics.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Yes.. sir. In the yellow shirt.
MR. CORTELLINO:
Charles Cortellino. I have some questions
concerning definitions. Referring to Section 421,
the Farm Section, r:umber eight; you don't give minimum
size, but on the farm you are permitted to have temporary
retail stand, on the street. Now, Section 421 includes
nursery and greenhouse, but that is not defined. And,
under greenhouses, you are referring to conservatories
-41—
and greenhouses should be permitted to sell.
Then under the definitions, "garage, public"
uses the words, a building "used for storage, care and
repair of motor vehicles" and "sale of motor vehicle
accessories" and "sale of motor fuels". Put, if he is
not selling motor fuel, would that still be considered
a public garage. The way it reads, that is a condition
for public garage.
The definition of "family" is ambiguous. Tn that
you've grouped together "agroup of related individuals
or not more than four unrelated individuals living and
cooking together as a signle housekeeping unit". And
"afoster home under the jurisdiction of a public agency,
shall be considered a 'family' ..." Now, under the
second sentence, does that mean no more than four people
can be in a foster home? That's the question! Maybe
it does not have to be defined, but it is ambiguous,
the way I read it.
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Write a letter please.
MR. CORTELLINO:
That figures. Okay.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Continuing, then? Yes, sir. Your name, and
address, please?
-42 -
MR. SHERMAN :
Jonah Sherman; 'yers Corner Road, Wappingers Falls.
The definitions are also something I amconcerned
about. Also, the purposes as spelled out in the Town
of Wappinger's proposed zoning code. Section 107 says
"To protect and conserve the value of land and buildings
... of all parts of the Town". Are you talking about
providing suitable recreation areas? If so, you don't
define "recreation". You also don't define "Planned
Industrial" areas. Yet that's discussed in the proposed
zoning code; and particularly when you talk about those
surrounding R-20 residential zones in the Town, like
Fairchild, on Myers Corner Road; and the Angel Brook
areas, which are completely surrounding by R-20 single
family residential zones, and planned industrial zones
were initially established to provide job opportunities
and a tax base, with very highly restricted guide lines
and uses. I feel that the new zoning code, or ordinance,
liberalized those uses without giving definitions of
what recreation or amusement consist of. For example
is disco dancing considered amusement or recreation.
I feel that the definitions have to be clarified and
tightened in order to be fairer to the people of the Town.
who purchased homes, knowing that they are adjacent to
PI areas; that they should be suitably protected by not
-43 -
liberalizing the uses for PI areas. But, you should
tighten them. I feel that if you continue to loosed
the restrictions, uhe Town and Town residents in part-
icular, will find themselves in the same position as
developers of proposed athetic and recreational facil-
ities have found themselves recently, in that they were
not able to mortgage the property because of the
restricted uses on the property. In turn, I think,
household residents will soon find that they will not
be able to get adequate mortgages on their properties
because of the uses of the adjacent properties being
liberalized.
Mr. Johnson, has stated, that the Ordinance will
"attempt to maintain a semi -rural atmosphere of the
Town of Wappinger". I believe that the liberalization
of the uses of PI areas in the Town will not "maintain
a semi -rural atmosphere".
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Thank you, Yr. Sherman
Anybody else? Yes, Frank.
PTR .
VERSACE:
Frank Versace, Oakwood Knolls.
I would like to refer to the book, Page 44, Section
426, entitled Recreational Use Development. Mr. Sherman
-44 -
has indicated what recreational uses and planned indust-
rial uses, and I am more concerned, although I am
concerned with that, I am basically concerned with the
awarding of Recreational Ilse -Development, Section 426.1
entitled. Legislative Findings and Purpose. Permitting
such a recreational zone does not take into account,
does not allow protection for the established home
owners, and with that type of ordinance a person would
normally buy a residence, hopefully to get away from
commercial enterprise, to live, supposedly, in a rural
atmosphere in a dvelopment which is basically that,
in the future. If there is vacant land along side of
the specific area, the Town has the right if application
is made to allow some type of recreation, in the specific
area; and the Town already has passed such a type of
zoning along Route 9, in which Sheridan Fnterprises
were involved, I believe, and it seems that they have
foundout that they can not receive money from the
bank because of the restrictions on the type of zoning,
and it is not beneficial to anybody coming in. They
would be placed under a "floating" recreational zone,
and it would be a handicap financially. This type of
zoning should be stricken from the books entirely. Tt
has been proven that it does not work. I don't see why
we should carry it on our books.
-145 -
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Thank you, Frank.
Yes, sir?
MR. HENCKE:
W.R. Hencke -- H -e -n -c -k -e -- 40 Ervin Drive.
I have several editorial comments, and one philosophical
comment. I will address the Board, ly first saying that
I a.rn not a farmer, and don't plan to be one, but there
are many towns which are antagonistic to farming. In
your proposed ordinance, Section 421 which requires the
use of a fully enclosed structure to house commercial
vehicles, and limits themto three, and not lees than
one acre of land avalaible for each animal. That's
absurd. I would recommend that it be rewritten to
specify large animals at one-quarter acre, which is
much more common; this would be more specifically for
a chicken farmer, and something like that. And, ,ou
then required "all animal feed is stored in rodent -proof
containers". That's not operable. You can not store
alfalfa in that type of container, the volume is too
great, if you are feeding animals.
My other comments are editorial, such as concerning
the definitions, for example the "ringelmann Smoke
Chart" method, called for, will not be suitable for
common non -colored gases, which is not containing solids.
-46-
It will not measure those. I think that that needs
rewording, and reworking. :^nother example, of the
definitions: "Toxic or Noxious Matter", I would
recommend striking out the phrase "by chemical means".
You don't care what the means are, if something is
toxic or noxious, a.nd harmful it limits the amount of
oxygen by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide.
At that .point who cares if it's physical or chemical.
If it results in death, that's physical.
Text is signs, Section 416.4 "Sign Regulations In
Residence Districts". .And, 2ubsection 416.41 says
that no sign shall be illuminated, which effectively
prevents you from illuminating your house numerals,
which, I am sure, is not the intent, but that is what
it says. That can be clarified.
Section 443.541, under "Heating" it says "No
space heating equipment or portable fuel burning
equipment shall be used in any unvented, confined
enclosure". 1'..ga.in, I am questioning the intent.
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
What What section is that again?
MR. HENCKE:
Section 443.451. And, also section 483.33 entitled
"Maximum Permitted Emission of Smoke" which says that
"there shall be no measurable emission of smoke, r_:as ..."
_47_
We are now at the point where we can measure down
to less than parts per billion, and parts per billion
are generally deemed, inmost cases, not for extremely
toxic substances, and to be non -pollutants by normal
federal and state definition. And, so long as you can
measure it, we can not emit it, and the techniques
are getting into hundreds of parts per billion. I think
that that is inoperable as written. And, the term "gas"
appears there, without further definition. The matter
needs further amplification, because of emissions of
pure carbon dioxide.
Section 483.343, as written, prohibits a farmer
from plowing his land because he is creating dust.
I am sure that that is not the intent of the Board.
Similarly, Section 483.4 "Odorous Matter" really
gets into the digs at the farmers, and apple orchards.
If you can detect odors emitting from the building,
it's outside the building, but the question here is
what is noxious. Is the smell of apples noxious?
That should be clarified.
One more thing, Section 483.134 "transient noises
of moving sources such as automobiles, trucks, airplanes,
and railroads." Maybe it's ignorance on my part, but
very brief, transient noises, like automobiles, are
exempt from the noise ordinance. ^.re they covered by
-48 -
some other section of the ordinance? For example,
rotor vehicles operating without mufflers. Are they
covered?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
They're covered by the noise ordinance.
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Would you give us a list of the Sections of the
Ordinance you've referred to, please?
MR. HENCKE:
Yes.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
rhank you.
We will now take a five minute recess for the
Reporter to put more paper in his machine.
[RECESS DECLARED AT 8:30 P.M.]
[RECESS TERMINATED AT 8:38 P.M.]
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
The Public Meeting -- Hearing, is called back
to order. The record should reflect that all Town
Board Members, Officials, and principals, ,,rad the
Attorney to the Town, are present.
At this time, I had a request that the radio
operators be permitted to identify themselves for the
-4g -
record, at least, since their principal, Skip has
spoken, and they just want to record that they are
supporting what Skip's said.
So, if you'll state your names, and address, that
is the radio operators ...
MR. HARRIS:
Bob Harris, Southern Tier REACT, CB group out of
southern Dutchess, and I would like to see Section
483.7 stricken, and 414.8 -- height restrictions of
antenna to at least conform to the Federal regulations.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Please, just state your name, and affiliations
if any, and whether you concur with Skip or not.
MR. NETZGER:
John Metzger, and I concur with Skip.
MR. KUTKAU:
Al Kutkau -- K -u -t -k -a -u -- and I concur too
with Skip; and I'm part of MARSA Affiliated Radio
System
MR. BLONDER:
Howard Blonder, and my concern is that we are
duly governed by Federal regulations and no local
ordinance should pre-empt those regulations. And, I
concur with Skip.
-50 -
MR. WHATHAM:
Dick Whatham, and I am involved with Civil Defense,
and I support Skip.
MR. ZENNER:
Francis Zenner, Director of Amateur Beacon Radio
Club; and I support Skip.
MR. KALINOWSKI:
Don Kalinowski, I'm an amateur and Manager of
the Hudson Valley Net, Public Service operation in
the area, and I concur with Skip.
MR. CARLOS:
Paul Carlos, Radio Amateur in Wappingers_Falls.
I concur with Skip.
MR. RUMSEY:
Doug Rumsey, Wappingers Falls, Southern Tier
REACT, and I agree with Skip.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
If that's it, then we will continue with the
others who have not spoken, who wish to address the
Board?
Yes, Warren?
MR. STROHM:
Warren Strohm, Pine Ridge Drive, Town of Wappinger.
I've a question and comment to make. First, is as to
the "Sign Ordinance", in reading it through, I find that
-51-
the proposed section is an improvement over the prior
section of Ordinance, or current Ordinance. But, I
have noticed in Ulster County, especially, for some
time, that there is a growing number of advertizing
signs on trailers, small trailers, with signs perhaps
eight feet wide, and eight feet high, and very well
illuminated with flashing lights. My question here
is does the ordinance address that type of situation,
with the flashing lights I know it does, but as to the
mibility of the signs, I don't know if the ordinance
specifically addresses that situation. I suspect that
the ordinance does cover the situation, but since it
is growing in popularity, at least in Ulster County
where I currently work, and recently, on Route 9 I
noticed a store using these signs. Now, I don't know
if it conforms, or not, with the current ordinance,
but I thought I would call it to the Board's attention,
since it appears to be growing in popularity.
The question has to do with some of your types of
developments along joint ownership lines. It appears
that the Ordinance does not address the situation of
joint ownership being permitted -- since it did not
come through clearly, to me, the wording as to what
happens if one of the joint owners decides to call it
quits after the development is partly constructed?
-52-
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Can ybu be a little more specific?
MR. STROHM:
For example in PUDs and RD areas, where it is
allowed that several property owners join together
meeting all requirements of acreage, etcetera, make
application to construct a specific PUD or houses,
or whatever, it's not clear to me if the application
is approved, and construction begins, what happens
if one of the joint owners were to decide to back out?
It seems like it might be providing exposure unless it
is an incorporated entity. I don't believe that
situation was included in the ordinance. In other
words, if there are several, legal, owners it increases
the likelihood that one or more of them, like I say,
may back out.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Councilman Johnson recommends that you put it
in writing, with specifics, and he will then address
the question.
MR. STROHM:
Other than that, I wanted to say that I approve
the regulations as part of the proposed ordinance
and recommend approval. I am not overwhelmed with
the Map, itself, but that does not show much improvement
-53--
over the last version proposed. I think that the Town
Board should approve it. I think the regulations part
has much to offer, after the problems brought up are
worked out.
I would like to suggest that for the convenience
of the residents, that the meetings be held during a
period other than vacation time.
Also, the legal notices, as published, were pretty
hard to read; maybe in the future some copies with
larger print could be made available, at a price so
that we can purchase them, with something of a more
normal print. That would make things a little easier
too.
SUPRVISOR DIEHL:
There were a supply of maps at the Town Hall,
you know.
Moving along with the second table-row?
Joe Incoronato?
MR. INCORONATO:
Joseph Incoronato, 14 Ronsue Drive, Wappingers
Falls.
The Dutchess County Planning Department apparently
ruled that the development of Route 9, provides an
excess of commercial and development, that is ten or
twenty times to be developed over the year 2000. And,
-54 -
Ron Brown of the Fishkill Planning Board who also
served on the 1990 Plan, takes the position that
there is too much HB -1 and 2 and an impediment to
traffic; and you can see it weekly, when going from
the Village, north to Poughkeepsie. If you were to
develop, the ultimate potential of your plan, you
will have hundreds of parcels HB -1 and HB -2 feeding
more blockage, and traffic jams, into Route 9. So,
I guess the question
these gentlemen seem
least, that the plan
I am posing tonight, and both
to have suggested it before at
you are providing,
or proposing,
contravenes and contradicts the massive development
plan proposed by Fredrick Clark Associates, your
highly paid consul tants. I wonder about the legal
implications; and the second legal problem is that
I question if this is considered under State Environ-
mental Review Act of 1978, where it's stated that there
is to be a determination made by the Town Board as to
whether this was compatible with the SECOR; and isn't
an Environmental Impact Statement to be made in
conjunction with this, and anticipation of the Zoning
Ordinance.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Not to my knowledge.
MR. INCORONATO:
-55 -
The law clearly states that an Environmental
Impact Statement has to be considered under SECOR
regulations, and I don't know if that is --
COUNCILMAN JENSEN:
It may have to be done before the Ordinance is
adopted.
MR. INCORONATO:
And, also in anticipation to Public Hearings I
think. I am not an expert at it, but that is probably
what has to happen.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Have you a record of that, to look into?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Yes.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Then, continuing? Table three?
MR. SOKOL:
John Sokol, Route 9, Wappingers Falls.
On Route 9, south the Board should consider
that parcel being the only one on Route 9 having
anything to do with OR -10 acres. Would you like
to reconsider that? Maybe make it all HB -1?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
You're in the area of Sunset Knolls?
MR. SOKOL:
-56 -
That's right.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
All right. We understand what you're saying. We
will look into it.
Yes, sir?
MR. CORTELLINO:
Charles Cortellino. I just want a clarification
on the definition of "sign" it says "any structure or
part thereof, or any device ... material or thing ...
which displays ... any numeral, letter, work, model,
banner, emblem, light, device ..." -- I've not read
the entire paragraph -- but as I drive along Route 9,
I see unmarked banners, with lights on which provides
-- quoting -- "visual communication to the general
public out-of-doors, ...". For instance, without
picking on any one car lot, but it is typical to see
yellow banners strung around the entire lot. My
question is, is that considered a sign, under the
definition of the new ordinance, or is it just an
attractive nuisance? This is a question, and not an
objection, nor am I approving the ordinance.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
We'll have to look into that.
Next speaker? Yes?
-57 -
MR. FANUELE:
Victor Fanuele; Section 450 "Site Development
Plan Approval" specifies that plans are to be submitted
to the Zoning Administrator. At the present time we
submit them to the Planning Board's Secretary. I
wonder if you really mean that change.
Section 450.3 refers to the Zoning Administrator
in place of what it was; and 450.2 refers to the
Zoning Administrator instead of the Planning Board's
Secretary.
I just wonder if this is really what is intended.
MR. LANDOLFI:
Joseph Landolfi, 24 Wildwood Drive.
My question pertains to Section 421 "Permitted
Principal Uses in Residential Districts". In today's
worsening economy we see increasing uses of the home
for business, and what I am suggesting, as part of
the Zoning Ordinance, perhaps the Zoning Board may
consider it right now, for instance in an area of
20,000 square feet, you can have a nursery. Perhaps
the Board might consider raising that to deter some
activity. That's an area we should really look at.
Each month the Zoning Board is faced with requests
and right now, again, the law does allow all kinds
of activities, which the people here this evening are
-58 -
not even aware of, that they can have in their own
neighborhoods.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Thank you. Continuing with Table three?
MR. HAAS:
Bill Haas, Wappingers.
I guess it's not a question, but a comment. We
are all aware of what strip zoning can do to the
community, and my question -- that's what it is -- is
Clark Associates' proposal was given in '74, I think,
and it was approved. My question is, is there anyone
on the Board who can address the rationale as to why
we've changed that proposal? Are they arbitrarily
changing it? What's the rationale for it?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
The prior one was done by Clark Associates, and
it's being revised. The former plan is being revised.
This revision is deing done by them.
MR. HAAS:
What was the original recommendation? Did they
make that up?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
During the process, various input and output
went into the plan, and it went in and out. Changes
w were made here, and in the past five years.
-59 -
Are you suggesting that Clark Associates recommends
strip zoning?
MR. HAAS:
They've proposed what's before us tonight. I am
not saying that they are recommending anything in one
form or another. In the original, they show in the
map specific areas for recreation, and I don't see it
on this new, proposed, map. Is that because they can
not show it on the formal map versus the original
recommendations?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
I didn't catch that.
COUNCILMAN JENSEN:
The Development Plan, is what's referred to now?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Yes.
MR. HAAS:
Yes. It showed a road proposed, and recreational
areas, and when the builders go in to put in their
developments, you have to make arrangements for the
recreational areas, and you can not show it on the
map, is that it?
COUNSEILMAN JOHNSON:
We can not anticipate what the Planning Board,
and the Recreation Department will chose or approve as
-60 -
land for recreational purposes. What Clark Associates
did, at that time, was put things that might look good
as recreational areas, but for technical reasons it
was objected to, and we can not show it because it is
not practical to do so.
SUPERIVSOR DIEHL:
The question as to recreational areas will be taken
up on individual basis as each development is applied
for.
MR. HAAS:
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Mr. Fanuele, again?
MR. FANUELE:
One thing, as to Section 450 "Site Development
Plan Approval". There is no provision for public
hearings to be held. I would recommend that we retain
the requirement for holding public hearings.
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
What Section?
MR. FANUELE:
Section 450 "Site Development Plan Approval".
There's no provision for public hearing, or any
requirement for it.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
-61 -
Thank you, Vic. We'll look into that, too.
Let's see, we've covered tables one, twq three?
table four?
MRS. HIRKALA:
Janet Hirkala, North Fowlerhouse Road. I can not
believe that in all this time, all you've come up with,
all we came up with, since 1975, as part of the Zoning
Commission, is this. And, as far as the map is
concerned, it is still the 1963 map. I think the
whole thing is a sham.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Anyone else at that table?
Yes, sir.
MR. HIRKALA:
Mike Hirkala. Again, it's the same thing all
over again, as far as philosophy is concerned. Mr.
Haas' comments, and questions, as to Clark Associates'
recommendations as to the particular plan, and I think,
if you can remember, back at the last public hearing,
it was the same thing, pretty much the same proposal
and map, and ordinance, that Clark worked up at that
time. And, then, Dave Portman said it was not his
proposal, but that he put down what somebody told him
tp put down. And, I believe his comment was that he
could not put their reputation behind the proposal,
-62 -
such as that one, the original proposal, and then
that was changed by the Board, and we have never
received comments from the Town Board as to why the
changes were made.
And, as far as the map is concerned, I have to
concur with what my wife has said. This is the 1963
map, and there's been nothing done to upgrade it.
The latest planning concepts were not included.
And, Section 105 says, under "Purposes" that it is
"to promote the most beneficial relation between the
use of land and buildings and the circulation of
traffic throughout the Town, having particular regard
to the avoidance of congestion of streets and provision'
of safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian traffic
movements appropriate to the various uses of land and
buildings throughout the Town." Now, there's no
objection to that, but can you tell me how that
relates to mass transit, and energy conservation in
today's world? How do you expect to have efficient
mass transportation when Route 9 will be all stop -and -
go, from one Town center to another. I think it is
time that the people of the Town, and the Town Board,
and in particular the Board, think about the fact that
the location of the Town does not lend itself to large
commercial use, due to the fact that there is a large
-63 -
commercial uses in the northern -- to the north of us.
And, we didn't ask for Route 84 in Fishkill, but that
is where it is, and Route 9 and Route 84 intersection
is something we'll have to live with.
I think that this particular proposal does not
recognize that fact.
In conclusion, I think possibly that this plan
is what we had before. And, my comments, at this time,
are probably the ame. There's no thought in it. The
only thing there is, is existing pressur group zoning.
Period.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Yes, sir. You wish to say something else?
MR. HAAS:
Yes. Bill Haas. 42 Ervin Drive. For the
vow -
record, you said that this is an official proposal
done by Clark Associates, as to what they say the Town
should look like?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
That was drawn by them with input from the Town.
MR. HAAS:
But, it's not a proposal by Clark. It's a comp-
ilation of input from various agencies and individuals
within the Town? Were they given carte blanch?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
No. They were not given carte blanch.
MR. HAAS:
-64-
This was from input given to them, and they
produced this?
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
That's correct. They were not given carte blanch.
Continuing, along? Anybody else?
Yes, sir.
MR. AMBROSIA:
Vincent Ambrosia. My property, here in Wappingers,
is 1000 feet south of Hopwell Road, and I want to
join Mr. Palmatier, and the others in Sunset Knolls,
in that I am opposed to the change of HB -1 to OR,
especially ten acres, because I only own two acres.
There are many other reasons too, and I will put them
into a letter.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Anybody else? Hearing and seeing no other
people wanting to comment, I will entertain a motion
to close this public hearing.
COUNCILWOMAN MILLS:
So moved!
COUNCILWOMAN REILLY:
Seconded.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
All in favor?
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON:
Aye.
COUNCILWOMAN REILLY:
Aye.
COUNCILWOMAN MILLS:
Aye.
COUNCILMAN JENSEN:
Aye.
SUPERVISOR DIEHL:
Aye. This meeting is closed!
[9:01 O'CLOCK P.M.]
-00000-
CERTIFICATION -66--
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS:
DUTCHESS COUNTY )
I, PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR, a stenotype reporter do
hereby certify that the foregoing Public Hearing was held
at the Wappinger Junior High School Cafeteria, Remsen Avenue,
Wappingers Fall, Dutchess County, New York, in the matter of
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP
OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, on Tuesday, June 26th, 1979, at
7:00 O'clock p. m., and that I faithfully and impartially
recorded, stenographically, the questions, and answers and
colloquy.
I further certify that after said hearing was recorded
it was reduced, by me, to typewriting, and I hereby submit
that the within is a true and accurate transcript of my
stenographic minutes, to the best of my ability.
I further certify that I am not a relative of, nor an
attorney for, any of the parties connected with the afore-
mentioned hearing, nor otherwise interested in the testimony
of the witnesses.
DATED: July 10th, 1979.
PHILIA `"STILLERMAN, RPR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER