1989-05-11 PHA Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger
on May 11, 1989, at the Town Hall, 20 Middlebush Road, Town of Wappinger,
Dutchess County, New York, on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and
Zoning Map.
Supervisor Paino opened the Hearing at 7:36 P.M.
Present:
Irene Paino, Supervisor
Vincent Farina, Councilman
Constance Smith, Councilwoman
Robert Valdati, Councilman
Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk
Absent:
David Reis, Councilman
Others Present:
Thomas Wood, Attorney
*Raymond Arnold, Town Planner
*Holly Thomas, Dutchess County Planner
Assisted Growth Management Committee with the
preparation of Amendments
Planning Board Members: (Also Members of the Growth Management
Committee)
James Mills
William Parsons
Chris Simonetty
The Town Clerk offered for the record the Affidavits of Posting and
Publication duly signed and notarized; they are attached hereto and
made part thereof of the Minutes of this Hearing.
The Minutes of this Hearing have been recorded by a Professional
Stenographer and are filed in the Town Clerk's files under subject
matter.
ONAA-A
aine H. Snowden
Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YORK - COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, AND
THE ADOPTION OF A NEW ZONING MAP.
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
May llth, 1989
7:30 o'clock p.m.
PRESIDING: IRENE M. PAINO, SUPERVISOR
PRESENT
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
VINCENT G. FARINA
CONSTANCE 0. SMITH
ROBERT L. VALDATI
CHRISTOPHER SIMONETTY
WILLIAM PARSONS
DONALD KELLER
JAMES MILLS
ELAINE H. SNOWDEN, TOWN CLERK
GLADYS RUIT, DEPUTY TOWN CLERK
HERBERT J. LEVENSON, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
RAYMOND ARNOLD, PLANNING CONSULTANT
HOLLY THOMAS, CONSULTING PLANNER FOR THE TOWN &
SENIOR PLANNER, DUTCHESS COUNTY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
47 Cannon Street
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
THOMAS F. WOOD, ESQ.
ATTORNEY TO THE TOWN
153 Albany Post Road
Buchanan, NY 10511
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
15 P.ART RTCKY T,ANF. POUGHKEEPSIE. NEW YORK 12601 <1>
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Ladies and gentlemen, there
is a sign in sheet in the hallway, next to the door
and if you wish to speak this evening, please sign
the sheet. We seem to have a rather large crowd
this evening, and it will make things easier for us
to call your name from the sign in sheet. The
meeting will run in a more orderly fashion that
way. So, if you've not done that, I will give you
a few more minutes.
[7:36 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: I call this Public Meeting
to Order.
Elaine?
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mr. Farina?
MR. FARINA: Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mr. Reis?
[NO RESPONSE.]
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mrs. Smith?
MRS. SMITH: Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mr. Valdati?
MR. VALDATI: Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN: Mrs. Paino?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Here.
MRS. SNOWDEN: All present but Mr. Reis.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <2>
"I would like to offer, for the record, first
of all, the Affidavit of Posting and Publication.
"Please take notice that the Town Board of the Town
of Wappinger will conduct a Public Hearing on May
11, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall of the Town
of Wappinger, at 20 Middlebush Road, Wappingers
Falls, New York, to consider Amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Wappinger and the
adoption of a new Zoning Map. All of the proposed
Amendments to the Ordinance are set forth at the
foot of this notice and the proposed Map is further
set forth.
"The Town Board will also receive comments
with respect to the Environmental Assessment Form
which has been prepared and filed with the Town
Clerk. Copies of the proposed Amendments as well
as copies of the proposed Map are available at the
Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Wappinger
during regular business hours, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday.
"Furthermore, an enlarged copy of the proposed
Zoning Map is on display at the Town Hall during
regular business hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <3>
"All those wishing to be heard should come
forward on the above date and time, or forward
their written comments to the Town Clerk of the
Town of Wappinger, on or before May 11, 1989 at
4:00 p.m.
"By Order of the Town Board, Town of
Wappinger, by: Elaine Snowden, Town Clerk."
Further, I would like to offer, for the
record, the recommendations from the Town of
Wappinger Planning Board, the County of Dutchess
Planning Department, and I would like to make
reference to the fact that notices were sent to the
Towns of Fishkill, East Fishkill, LaGrange,
Poughkeepsie, the Village of Wappingers Falls, the
Town of Newburgh, Orange County Legislature, and
the Clerk of the Dutchess County Legislature, the
Dutchess County Planning Board, on 14 April 1989.
I have here correspondence, letters, received
in opposition to various Amendments or proposed
Amendments to the Zoning Map, and I will read off
the names. The Town Board has received copies of
each of these letters, and unless they wish them to
be read, individually, into the record, at this
time, I would like to instruct the stenographer to
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <4>
consider these letters when transcribing the
minutes, as having been read individually into the
record, and thus have each of them a part of the
proceedings of the meeting. The list of those who
wrote letters are: Otto H. Feilen, representing
his three parcels; Benjamin Roosa, and attorney,
representing Posar Realty Corporation, William
Hammond; David Hagstrom, an attorney, representing
Carl Swenson; Harold Mangold, an attorney,
representing James Klein, various parcels; John
Lawrence; Anthony Montleone, an attorney,
representing Alexander Hartman; Ernesto and
Concetta Olivieri; Nancy and Denis Chambers;
Nicholas Dagnone; Dena and Jeff Relyea; Joseph
Jordan; Grace and Peter Elder; Mr. and Mrs. Mel
Zipes; Mrs. Fred Snowden; Joseph C. Jordan,
representing Andreas Metzger; Mark Eickelbeck; Bill
Hammond, Posar Realty Corporation; Timothy L.
Cronin, Jr., P.E.; Edward K. Hedberg, an attorney,
representing Lisbon E. Allen; Barry S. Cohen.
Correspondence that has been received after
the 10th of May, which the Town Board members have
not received, or perhaps not all of it, again are
in opposition to the proposed Zoning Map Amendments
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <5>
from Albert P. Roberts, an attorney representing
John Montford; Richard Mitchell, an attorney
representing Interstate Tire; Richard Mitchell
representing Beverly Canter; Peter Van Kleeck,
President of Pawling Savings Bank; Mildred Diddell,
and Peter Tomasic.
I think that concludes what I have to say.
[THE FOLLOWING ARE THE LETTERS PROVIDED BY THE
TOWN CLERK FOR INCLUSION IN THE MINUTES.]
Dated April 29, 1989, received May 4, 1989
from Otto H. Feilen. "Dear Mr. Levenson: Zoning
comments are included for: 19-6056-02-660680,
19-6056-02-703540, 19-6056-02-707890.
"Would you please consider the comments for
action prior to finalization of the proposed zoning
changes.
"Also, I would like to speak to the Town Board
at the May 11, 1989 Public Hearing."
"Reference: 19-6056-02-660680. Proposed
Zoning Change.
[DIAGRAM NOT REPRODUCED.]
"The proposed zoning change for the referenced
parcel is R-80 while around the present R-20 zoning
it is more business and office research. The power
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <6>
lines more represent business, as well as the land
behind by usage which is storage of non registered
vehicles (junk cars). Therefore, single family
homes were difficult to justify with mainly
business bordering.
"This parcel should be
is free of wetlands and the
to Town is not R-80 zoning.
viewed and
walked as it
biggest income benefit
Neighborhood Business,
Office Research 1 acre, power lines
vehicle storage does not contribute
parcel as residential zoning.
"Therefore, it is recommended that for the new
zoning it be 0 - Office, and under present zoning
it be OR -1A - Office/Research 1 Acre.
"This recommended zoning would be in keeping
with the majority zoning around the property and
not stand out as spot zoned. Route 9D does also
provide the travel ease to support this zoning.
The power lines behind are a natural divide point,
as can be seen up the road where this right of way
separates the Business and Residential zoning. The
Business parcels being along Route 9D.
"Very truly yours, Otto H. Feilen."
Dated April 29, 1989, received May 4, 1989
and in
view
to keep this
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <7>
from Otto H. Feilen. "Dear Mr. Levenson:
Reference: 19-6056-02-703540 Proposed Zoning
"The referenced parcel is presently R-20 and
R-30 zoned and is proposed to be R-80.
"This parcel is a substantial designated
wetlands and therefore is under DEC control. As
you are aware stringent rules apply. In the
interest of the Town growth and highest land
taxation, the R-80 single residential zoning does
not justify early development. However, if the
total surrounding acreage parcels are considered;
19-6056-02-703540 11.8 acres
-815628 18 acres
-721673 26 acres
-770690 11 acres
66.8 acres
there would be over 50 acres of undeveloped land,
which would have at its west a natural divider of
Central Hudson power lines, and at the east the NY
State Stony Kill lands, and Route 9D on the south.
Presently, about 26 acres (19-6056-02-72163) is in
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <8>
use as business, non conforming. Across Route 9D
is a Central Hudson Power Station and NB - Neigh-
borhood Business Zoning.
"If the parcels of total identified acreage
is NB - Neighborhood Business zoned, within the
three natural boundaries, this NB zoning would:
1. Recognize that Business can more
afford to do the necessary development.
2. Increase the Town tax assessments,
especially the present 26 Acre business usage
of land, which could be assessed as business
usage.
3. Allow Business development under the
control of the Planning and Zoning Boards of
the Town, while additional help of the DEC
would ensure wetland conformance.
"It is recommended that the referenced parcel
and identified surrounding parcels be visited and
walked, and that the proposed R-80 zoning not be
implemented for the parcel(s) but rather NB -
Neighborhood Business.
"Very truly yours, Otto H. Feilen."
Dated April 29, 1989 and received May 4, 1989.
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <9>
"Reference: 19-6056-02-707890-00 Proposed
zoning.
"The present zoning is NB - Neighborhood
Business and is proposed to be CC - Conservation
Commercial.
"The referenced parcel has a touch of
designated wetlands, but with the buffer zone there
is considerable control on development. This
parcel has been Local Business or Neighborhood
Business zoning for the past 20 years, with assess-
ments and taxes based on that usage. Although the
site received prior planning and zoning approvals
(site plan available on request) for a shopping
mall, the area population at the time did not
support its construction.
"The parcel has over 1700 feet of road
frontage and the proposed zoning change would
effectively cut in half its usage. This would not
provide the increase in tax assessments required to
offset the Town budget operating expense increases.
The change will not maintain a consistent usage for
the years of taxes paid and that the Town received.
"It is recommended that the referenced parcel
retain the present NB - Neighborhood Business
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <10>
zoning because:
1. The land and road frontage can
support the over 20 years of consistent
Business (Local and Neighborhood) zoning.
It is recommended that the parcel be visited
for a first hand observation.
2. Prior site plan approval has been
given for a shopping mall which requires an
updating for new rule conformance.
3. Higher taxation would result if the
past and present zoning is maintained.
4. Adequate approvals and controls are
in place to assure conformance to meet
construction requirements and the Town plan.
"Very truly yours, Otto H. Feilan."
Letter from Roosa and Roosa, attorneys,
dated April 28, 1989, received May 1, 1989, re:
Grid No. 19-6157-04582220-00,
"Gentlemen: We have been requested to
communicate with you by the principal of Posar
Realty Corp. who is the owner of certain realty
located on Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger and
shown on your tax map under the grid number above
noted.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <11>
"The property in question has been zoned
commercial for many years and it is our understand-
ing that you recently have proposed that the prop-
erty be changed from that classification to a
residential use and placed in an R20-40 classif-
ication.
"This change makes absolutely no sense to us
since the property has been for ma[n]y years
utilized commercially and is at the present time
partially rented to a commercial enterprise and
also utilized by the owner in a commercial manner.
"In addition, all of the property except for
the Fowler House Development along Route 9 has been
zoned commercial and to exclude this parcel and an
adjoining parcel from that classification would be
spot zoning in our opinion.
"Needless to say the change as proposed would
create a tremendous hardship on our client since
the property value would drastically decrease by
the change of such classification since the use
thereof would become a non -conforming use under
your recent proposals.
"It is therefore respectfully requested that
the re -zoning of the aforementioned parcel be
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <12>
reconsidered prior to the adoption of the proposals
which will be the subject of a Public Hearing on
May 11, 1989.
"Very truly yours, Roosa and Roosa by Benjamin
P. Roosa, Jr."
Letter from VanDeWater and VanDeWater,
attorneys, dated May 2, 1989, received May 3, 1989,
"Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance.
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"I am pleased to advise you that we represent
Carl H. Swenson, Jr. who owns tracts of land on New
Hackensack Road, near the Dutchess County Airport.
Under the current Zoning Ordinance, the parcels we
are concerned about are zoned A -I or Airport
Industrial.
"On the parcels just south of the Brown
Professional Building (on the west side of New
Hackensack Road), it is proposed to rezone it to
'0' - Office. We have no objection to that.
"However, on the east side of New Hackensack
Road, directly across from the parcel, and south of
Cross -Court Tennis Club, it was formerly zoned A -I
to a depth of 400 feet. That designation has been
changed to R-20. It is respectfully submitted that
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <13>
it would be good planning to have that portion
rezoned to '0' - Office, consistent with the change
on the west side of New Hackensack Road. This
would also be in conformance with the prior
designation of this land as 'A -I', and would leave
similarly zoned lands facing each other.
"We would request to be heard at the public
hearing to give specific reasons in support of this
zoning change.
"Very truly yours, VanDeWater and VanDeWater
By: David D. Hagstrom."
Letter from Harold L. Mangold, attorney, dated
May 2, 1989 received May 8, 1989, to Elaine
Snowden, Town Clerk.
"Re: James Klein Zoning Matter - Our File
No. 89-290.
"Dear Ms. Snowden:
"I would ask that this letter be made part of
the record of the meeting of May 11, 1989, with
reference to the proposed zoning in the Town of
Wappingers.
"I wish to advise the Board that I represent
James Klein and David Alexander, the owners of many
parcels of property in the County of Dutchess, two
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <14>
of which are being affected by your rezoning of the
Town of Wappingers. I would like to address those
two parcels.
"On Route 9 is a 15 -acre [SIC] parcel
presently in a split zone, 3 acres of which is in a
HB2A zone and 12 acres of which is now in an R-20
zone without access except through the highway
business zone. Present proposed zoning calls for
the rezoning of the property to the new HB zone for
the front 3 acres and the rear to conservation
office park zone. It should be noted that the 12
acres IS LANDLOCKED except by access through the HB
zone to Route 9. It is also obvious that it would
be poor planning to require a conservation office
park zone which only allows uses such as executive
and administrative offices for business, government
or professional; day-care facilities; buildings
operated by the Town of Wappinger; warehousing, but
not self -storage; and retail sales primarily
serving the conservation office park to have as its
sole access the multi -uses allowed in the HB zone
which allows a much wider range of commercial uses.
It is obvious that no one is going to pay money to
have an office of the type described in the COP
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR ( OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <15>
zone which would have to enter through an active
commercial use. This obvious mistake must be
rectified, or the appropriate application with
regard to the rezoning process must be made. The
property will never develop correctly under this
system, and the use will never be achieved. It is
respectfully requested that the 12 acres presently
designated conservation office park zone be
redesignated for highway business use.
"Located on New Hackensack Road, also known as
County Road 104, is a parcel of property of approx-
imately 1.5 acres on which are located 3 Multiple
Residence Buildings with 18 units. My clients have
owned the property since 1960 or 1961. In the same
area and on Wildwood Drive are located the Wildwood
Apartments consisting of 60 to 70 units which are
presently zoned RMF -3. Your proposed zoning change
continues that designation. Unfortunately, the
same changes continues my client's property as R-20
perpetuating a non -conforming use. It, in fact,
creates and includes activity which is the
antithesis of zoning and precludes the orderly
progression of the use to meet the existing
economic and zoning climate, and especially the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <16>
planning for the Town of Wappingers as it continues
to grow and improve. It is therefore requested
that the parcel owned by James Klein in the
proposed R-20 zone and presently used for multiple
dwellings be appropriately rezoned to a multiple
dwelling use which more nearly conforms to the
present use of the property.
"I will be present at the meeting and will be
available to answer any and all questions.
"Very truly yours, Harold L. Mangold, Esq."
Letter from Lawrence Farms, Inc., dated March
17, 1989 received March 17, 1989.
"RE: Proposed Zoning - Town of Wappinger
Subject Property consists of 10.447 acres
Located on Route 9
Identified as Grid #19-6156-02-710921
In the Town of Wappinger
"Dear Mr. Levinson: [SIC]
"As you are aware, the zoning at this time is
Highway Business 2 acres for the above property.
Under this zone, we have received site plan
approval from the Town of Wappinger Planning Board
to construct an additional 12,200 sq. ft. of retail
space. Existing buildings of 13,000 sq. ft. are
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <17>
currently being used for retail as provided by the
zoning ordinance Town of Wappinger.
"In reviewing the proposed zoning map dated
January 1989, I find that approximately 20% of this
parcel will be in HB Highway Business and the
balance remaining of 80% is in the R20/40 zone. I
ask that you please review my findings and place
this property totally in HB Highway Business zone.
The value of this property, as I am sure you are
aware, will drop drastically if it does not remain
in a Highway Business zone.
"Thank you for your consideration.
"Sincerely, John R. Lawrence."
Letter from Monteleone and Bender, attorneys,
dated April 10, 1989 received April 11, 1989.
"Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance.
"Gentlemen:
"This firm represents Alexander Hartman in
connection with development proposals for his
property located on Route 376 and Myers Corners
Road.
"The first purpose to be served by this letter
is to inform you that we wish to reserve the
opportunity to speak on behalf of our client at any
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <18>
and all formal and informal public hearings which
are to be held before either of your Boards
incident to the adoption procedures with respect
the proposed, revised zoning ordinance now before
you. We would appreciate it, in this regard, if
copies of the notices of such meetings could be
sent directly to us at the address set forth above.
"We would also like to take this opportunity
to bring to your attention several areas of concern
which we hope to address in more detail at the
public hearing or hearings with are to be held.
"With regard to the proposed R40/80 zone
within which a major portion of our client's
property would fall, we take note that not only is
there a proposed significant decrease in overall
development density, depending upon the
availability of central water supply or sewage
disposal facilities, but it is also proposed that
minimum lot depth and width requirements be changed
in such a way that densities would be reduced even
further. Moreover, the available 'development
envelope' within each lot would be severely
restricted. Lots would become much more uniform in
size and configuration. In an area of varying
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <19>
topographic and geologic conditions, this simply
will not work. What is being proposed represents
to a large degree a reversion to 1950s subdivision
standards, although the numbers involved in the
proposed bulk regulations are admittedly different.
"You also propose to change our client's
zoning designation for the balance of his property
from PI -1A to COP. The effect upon the develop-
ment potential of our client's property is
devastating. Not only would you increase minimum
required lot sizes by a factor of ten (from one
acre to ten acres), you also halve the limits on
building footprint and on floor area ratio and
increase front, rear and side yard setbacks to such
a degree that the development envelope is unreason-
ably restricted. For example, a parcel which would
meet the minimum requirement of 500 feet in width,
and which would, therefore, be approximately 800
feet in depth, would have a development envelope of
only 100 feet wide after allowing for the two side
yard setbacks of 200 feet each. Unless one is
dealing with absolutely flat property containing no
unusual geological features, development becomes
virtually impossible as well as being tantamount to
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <20>
confiscation due to the severe reduction of the
development envelope.
"The Planned Unit Development District (PUD)
which is embodied in the proposed ordinance is
virtually meaningless. The standards are so vague,
that in effect, those sections of the ordinance
have no legal significance other than to recite the
availability of the same entitlement of a property
owner to request a rezoning which already exists by
virtue of constitutional principles. Unless some
standards are incorporated which define and delimit
the PUD concept and the ability of your Boards to
shape a given proposal on an ad hoc basis, the PUD
provisions in the proposed ordinance are simply
without substance.
"We take note that the proposed COP zone
provides for a special permit use designated as
Designed Multiple Use (DMU). However, there is a
cross reference to the present section 442 of your
ordinance which, strictly speaking, presumes an
application for designed residential development on
land which is already zoned for residential
purposes. Unless some kind of parallel revision is
made to section 442, the DMU special permit use for
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <21>
the proposed COP zone cannot possibly be
implemented without an extremely awkward
interpretation of the ordinance itself. Further
consideration at a technical level is indicated.
"These are some, but not all of the points
which are of concern to us and to our client. We
hope and expect to have a reasonable opportunity to
discuss these with you and to resolve the outstand-
ing issues in a way which would make your new
ordinance more reasonable and less confiscatory.
Certainly, the proposed ordinance in its present
form and content disadvantages our client to such
a degree that the ability of the proposed ordinance
to withstand a challenge based on State and Federal
constitutional standards is seriously in question.
We are; convinced that other property owners
similarly disadvantaged would find themselves with
no practical alternative except to fall back upon
their legal remedies in Court.
"Very truly yours, Monteleone and Bender,
Anthony J. Monteleone."
Letter dated May 10, 1989 from Ernesto and
Concetta Olivieri, received May 9, 1989.
"To: Town of Wappinger, Town Board.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <22>
"From: Ernesto and Concetta Olivieri.
"Re: Recent Rezoning Map and Property Zone
Changes.
"As you know, the area of land behind the five
acres of property, Grid # 6157-02-668575 and Grid #
6157-02-645586, is zoned conservative office park.
Presently, this area is being developed by Alpine
Associates for use as a commercial plaza.
As owners of the adjoining aforementioned five
acre property, we would appreciate approval to
rezone our residential property to commercial
property. This appears necessary to keep our
property consistent with our surroundings. In
particular the commercial property of the 7-11
Store and Rent -All center to the east of our
property. Also, the property owned by Alpine
Associates to the north.
"We appreciate any and all consideration you
can give on this matter.
"Sincerely, Ernesto Olivieri, Concetta
Olivieri."
Letter dated April 22, 1989 from Nancy and
Denis Chambers, received April 27, 1989.
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <23>
"We are writing to you in the hope of having
our property, located on Route 82 in Wappingers
Falls, Grid # 19-6356-206904, considered for
rezoning from residential to general business or
some other classification that will allow us to run
a small business from our home.
"Our property is about 100 yards from property
already zoned commercial (Steak Barn Restaurant)
and 200 yards in the other direction down the road
in the Town of Fishkill, a home is already zoned
for small business. We have no neighbors on our
east side (Horse Farm) or directly across the
highway. Getting the approval of our remaining
neighbors should be no problem.
"Enclosed you will find out plot plan complete
with grid numbers, etc. As we were not sure how to
proceed with this, we felt it best to write to you
first.
"We thank you for your time and consideration
in this matter, and look forward to hearing from
you.
"Sincerely yours, Nancy Chambers, Denis M.
Chambers."
Letter dated April 22, 1989 from Nicholas
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <24>
Dagnone, Carmel Fitness Club, received April 26,
1989.
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"I formally request for consideration that the
following property be considered and changed to
commercial zoning. The present status is
Residential 1/2 Acre Zoning.
"2.35 Acres # 19-6157-01-276805 corner of
Middle Bush Rd. & Rt 9 D.
"The presence of the town hall and traffic
plus potential of increase traffic does not enhance
this property for children and/or family
residences.
"I have enclosed a copy of the tax map for
your review. I will be appearing at the Public
Hearing for Zoning in May.
"Thanking you in advance.
"Very truly yours, Nicholas Dagnone, Carmel
Fitness Club."
Letter undated, from Jeff and Dena Relyea, All
Season Siding, received February 3, 1989.
"Mr. Levenson,
"We have lived at 2 Middlebush Road for the
last 2 1/2 years. When we bought this house,
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <25>
traffic was heavy, but not as heavy as it is today.
Since our area is growing everyday, we don't see
the traffic situation improving on 9D & Middlebush.
We sit it worsening.
"We have been trying to sell our house through
Weichert Realty for the last 4 months. There have
been several interested buyers, but all rejections
come from the traffic situation.
"Our concern is that this property will not
sell as a residential property.
"There was someone very interested in our
house for commercial use, which we fell would be
the highest & best use for this property.
"We as the owners, no longer feel this
property is safe for residential use.
"We are requesting that 2 Middlebush Rd. be
rezoned for commercial use.
"Thank you. Dena & Jeff Relyea."
Letter from J and B Associates, dated March 1,
1989 Environmental/Development Consultants, Joseph
C. Jordan, President, received March 3, 1989.
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"I am writing you on behalf of my client who
owns a 33.9 +/- acre parcel situate in the Town of
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <26>
Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York (tax parcel
#6358-03-144490). The parcel is located on the
easterly side of the town immediately southwest of
the intersection of Sprout Creek and N.Y.S. Route
376 (see attached map). The easterly boundary of
the site is Sprout Creek which is also the town
line between the Town of Wappinger and the Town of
East Fishkill. The western property line is
immediately adjacent to a parcel containing Central
Hudson Gas & Electric power lines.
"The purpose for writing this letter is to
request a reconsideration of the proposed zoning of
this particular parcel. As I understand from a
conversation with Ms. Holly Thomas, this particular
parcel/area is to remain residentially zoned as
supported by the newly adopted plan for the Town of
Wappinger. I regret that my concerns had not been
expressed during the early states involved in pre-
paring the Town Plan, however, at this point I
would like to bring some of these concerns to your
attention.
"The primary concern is that both my client
and the Town of Wappinger are able to realize the
maximum potential utilization of the above
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <27>
referenced parcel. For all intents and purposes,
for my client, I would consider actual site
utilization and return on investment the priority.
Specifically for the town, safety and sit[e]
utilization which would provide the highest
ratability in terms of net revenue would be the
priority.
"In keeping with residential site utilization,
there are many constraints which preclude efficient
site utilization. These are both practical and
physical.
1) A majority of the parcel contains a
portion of the 100 year flood plain
of Sprout Creek. The more elevated
areas of the parcel are substan-
tially adjacent to the C.H.G. & E.
power lines. These two (2) facts not
only inhibit efficient residential
development, but the marketability
and safety of residences would be
affected. As you may know, some
recent studies have documented that
high degree of exposure to trace
radiation from electric power lines
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <28>
may be considered a health hazard.
It would hardly be appropriate to
concentrate year round, day in day
out residences with this degree of
exposure so near a potential hazard.
2) In a larger sub -regional context,
directly north of the parcel are
lands zoned light industry, to be
rezoned to conservation office park.
Directly adjacent and east of this
parcel are lands within the Town of
East Fishkill which are zoned light
industrial (several complexes are
under construction). When these
light industrial/office park zones
are built out in the future, it will
be difficult to invision [SIC] the
wisdom of constructing a small scale
residential development which is land
locked, by a power line on the west
side and by light industrial/office
land uses on all others, in their
midst.
"Commercial utilization of this site appears
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <29>
to be fare more appropriate in a long range
context/perspective with regards to planning,
physical development, and maximazation of
resources. The C.H.G. & E. power lines in effect
act as a natural buffer between what would be this
rezoned commercial parcel and an existing
residential area.
"Commercial use of a parcel does not necessar-
ily require physical construction as a prerequisite
to usage. Residential use does require physical
construction in the form of permanent residences.
My client at this point has expressed an interest
in utilizing a portion of the site for a 'tree
nursery' and also for storage of heavy equipment.
Neither of these uses are precluded by the presence
of 100 year flood plain. Many forms of light
industrial/commercial use can occur on or in 100
year flood plains without affecting the flood
plain's integrity provided the flood plain is not
filled in and/or built on. Residential use of a
flood plain always necessitates filling, generally
to a large degree. With appropriate sensitivity to
environ -mental factors, this parcel in particular
could become a considerable ratable asset to the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <30>
Town of Wappinger, while simultaneously serving the
requirements of this owner.
"I would greatly appreciate an opportunity to
meet with you and the additional Town Consultants
to discuss this matter further. In closing, I
would like to thank you for your cooperation and
consideration on this matter. In the long run all
parties involved and affected by the 'New Town of
Wappinger' should benefit greatly by the town's
continued efforts.
"Very truly yours, Joseph C. Jordan,
President."
Letter dated March 28, 1989, from Grace and
Pete Elder, received March 29, 1989.
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"We understand that the Town of Wappinger is
in the process of finalizing their new zoning map.
We would like to take this opportunity, prior to
the completion of the final zoning map, and request
that you rezone our property (Tax Map # 6259-03-
475065) to conform with our adjacent property,
B/D Contracting (Tax Map # 6259-04-503105).
"We understand that the new zoning for our
B/D Contracting property will be 'GB -General
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <31>
Business'. We are requesting that our adjoining
property be included in with this new zoning also,
in that way the two properties will conform with
each other. We make this request based on the
track record that we have established at our B/D
Contracting property. We have great pride in this
site, and we feel it clearly shows by what we have
done. We wish to continue this track record with
the adjoining property if given the opportunity.
Therefore, we hope that you will look favorably
upon our request.
"Thank you for your time and assistance in
this matter; we look forward to hearing from you in
the immediate future.
"Sincerely, Grace Elder, Pete Elder."
Letter dated May 5, 1989 from Mr. and Mrs.
Melvin Zipes, received May 5, 1989.
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"We would like to express our displeasure upon
the decision to rezone Degarmo [SIC] Hills Rd.,
Wappingers Falls into a R-20 category in the new
Master Plan.
"This neighborhood has enough traffic with the
shopping centers at the end of the road. We do not
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <32>
need more congestion.
"We urge you to reconsider this decision.
"Sincerely yours, Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Zipes."
Letter dated May 8, 1989 from Mrs. Fred
Snowden [not marked received].
"Dear Board Members:
"I would like to take this opportunity to go
on record as objecting to the proposed Amendments
to the Zoning Map with respect to the properties on
Myers Corners Road between De Garmo Hills Road and
All Angels Hill Road. Specifically the SPOT ZONING
for 'Office' of 3 Parcels on the South side of
Myers Corners Rd., and the rezoning on the North
Side from R20 to R40, which, effectively places
them in R80.
"Please reconsider either leaving this whole
segment of the Zoning Map as it appears on the 1980
Map, or, have the whole Segment between De Garmo
Hills Rd., and All Angels Hill Rd. zoned 'Office',
or a similarly appropriate Commercial Zone. This
whole area, between Brothers Road and Fenmore Road
is really no longer an ideal residential area, and
to put it into its proper perspective at this time
would be a wise determination.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <33>
"Thank you for entertaining either one or the
other of the above suggestions.
"Yours truly, (Mrs. Fred) Elaine Snowden."
Letter dated May 11, 1989 from J & B
Associates, Joseph C. Jordan, President, received
May 9, 1989.
"Dear Boardmembers, [SIC]
"I am writing to you on behalf of my client,
Mr. Andreas Metzger, who is a resident and taxpayer
residing in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Metzger
owns approximately 35 acres of property which
essentially is a defunct farm.
"The parcel is referenced as tax parcel
6258-04-535305 on the Town of Wappinger tax roll
and is located in the central portion of the town
with access presently derived from Old Myers
Corners Road. Being there is no readily envisioned
future in farming for the parcel, it is the
intention of Mr. Metzger to subdivide and develop
the property into single family homesites [SIC].
"The parcel is presently zoned R-20 and the
present proposal before the Town is to 'upzone'
[SIC] the parcel to R-40.
"This letter is therefore submitted to you as
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <34>
a request to reconsider 'upzoning' [SIC] this
parcel and to allow the parcel to remain zoned
R-20.
"At present, much of the surrounding areas
have been developed to R-20 standards by creating
additional tenants to both the Town of Wappinger
Water and Sewer Districts. It would be Mr.
Metzger's intention to petition the Town to expand
these districts to encompass his present holdings.
As shown on the attached copy of the Water and
Sewer District Map, the Metzger parcel is virtually
surrounded by either sewer or water district. In
light of todays Health Department standards,
without central sewer as a minimum, it would be
impossible to design a subdivision to R-20 zoning
standards due to 'separation requirements' for
wells and septic systems. An R-20 subdivision
could however be designed with individual wells and
central sewer service if the town would entertain
expanding the existing Wappinger Sewer Improvement
No. 1 district. (SEE ATTACHED MAP OF DISTRICT)
"In all liklihood, [SIC] due to the physical
layout of the Metzger property, a majority of lots
within a proposed R-20 subdivision would be well in
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <35>
excess of the R-20 minimum spatial requirements.
"It would appear that by maximizing the
potential of this parcel in terms of its develop -
ability, that both the Town and the Metzgers could
benefit from the value inherent in the parcel as a
resource.
"Thank you for your cooperation and consider-
ation as regards the upcoming rezoning of the Town
of Wappinger.
"Respectfully submitted, J & B Associates,
Joseph C. Jordan, President."
Letter dated January 26, 1989 from AVR REALTY
COMPANY, Mark Eickelbeck, received January 30,
1989.
"Re: +/- 50 Acres
McFarland Road
Town of Wappinger Falls
"Dear Herb:
"Per our meeting of January 13, 1989 and our
subsequent phone conversations, you have informed
me that our parcel of land is presently being
considered for re -zoning from R-20 to COP
(Conservative [SIC] Office Park).
"As discussed, we are looking to develop this
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <36>
parcel of land in the very near future as a
residential condominium/townhouse/garden apartment
development, therefore I am writing to request that
the zoning for this parcel of land not be changed
to COP. We will however request a re -zoning from
R-20 to R -MF -5. Please note there exists R -MF -5
zoning adjacent and directly to the east of our
parcel. If possible, we would like this zoning to
take place at the same time the re -zoning to COP
would have taken place. If not then we request to
have the parcel remain R-20 and when we have
prepared plans for our proposed development we
would request a change in zone. Please advise me
of the most appropriate method.
"Thank you for your cooperation in this
matter.
"Very truly yours, AVR REALTY COMPANY, Mark
Eickelbeck."
Letter dated January 24, 1989, from Posar
Realty Corp., Bill Hammond, received January 26,
1989.
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"I would like to register an objection to the
proposed rezoning of property I own on Route 9 in
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <37>
the Town of Wappingers.
"My request is that this parcel, previously
zoned commercial highway business, revert to its
former status. At this time I also request that
the remainder of this parcel be zoned commercial,
thereby providing me with a practical piece of
property.
"I support zoning which protects all home and
land owners in our town and I agree that structures
built on the land should be useful, aesthetically
acceptable to their locale and considerate of our
environment.
"Sincerely, Bill Hammond, Posar Realty Corp."
Letter dated January 17, 1989 from Timothy L.
Cronin, Jr., P.E. and Associates, received January
19, 1989.
"Dear Ms. Paino:
"RE: Property, Kettle Associates, South
Fowler House Road, Town of Wappingers Falls
"We are the owners of the above referenced
property. This property abuts Route 9. It has
access to Route 9 via South Fowler House Road. The
site distance for traffic entering Route 9 at this
intersection is excellent. It is our understanding
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <38>
that the Town is going to adopt a new zoning map
shortly. This property is currently zoned R-20.
"It is our belief that a single family house
on this property would not be desirable because of
the following:
1. The noise from traffic on Route 9
would be above the acceptable level
recommended for residential use.
2. The property to the south and east
are zoned commercial.
3. The proximity to Route 9 would make
residential development dangerous for
children.
4. We have verified, with the Dutchess
County Health Department, that a
septic for a single family home would
create more sewage flow, which would
have to be absorbed by the ground
water, than a small commercial use.
"Therefore I respectfully request favorable
consideration to having this property zoned for
commercial use.
"Respectfully submitted, Timothy L. Cronin,
Jr., Professional Engineer."
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <39>
Letter dated April 28, 1989 from Edward K.
Hedberg, an attorney, received April 29, 1989.
"Re: Premises of Lot Two (2), on a certain
map entitled 'Subdivision of Property of
Fred and Ida Tambolini situated in the
Town of Wappingers, Dutchess County, New
York, January 1975' filed as Map No.
4538, Tax Lot No. 19-6156-02-0822808
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"I represent Mr. Lisbon E. Allen who is the
owner of the above -identified premises. Mr.
Allen's address is P. O. Box 845, Wappingers Falls,
New York 12590.
"Mr. Allen understands that your office
intends to propose a change -of -zoning from strictly
residential, to commercial. The area, he believes,
you expect to effect by this change includes my
client's said premises.
"On behalf of my client, please be notified
that Mr. Allen seeks and wishes the zoning classi-
fication for his said premises changed from
residential to commercial.
"Please acknowledge receipt of this letter;
and my client would appreciate your office keeping
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <40>
him informed regarding these matters.
"Very truly yours, Edward K. Hedberg."
Letter dated June 12, 1987 from Barry S. Cohen
an attorney [not marked received].
"Dear Mrs. Snowden:
"May I request your help in placing this
letter and it's enclosures before the full Town
Board of the Town of Wappinger.
"I am the owner of approximately forty-five
(45) acres of undeveloped, raw land in the Town of
Wappinger, consisting of a strip, fronting on, and
permitting access to and from, Route 9; and 44.2
acres lying contiguously behind that entrance -strip
with another access -egress to Osborne Hill road.
The enclosed maps indicate the land's location.
"Immediately between one corner of the land
and the Highway lies the abutting parcel upon which
Lloyd's Lumber Company has now been permitted to
begin its home -furnishings facility.
"Immediately to the north of the land, and
practically abutting it, are the PASNY power lines
of the 'heavy-duty' Marcy South/Central Hudson Gas
and Electric utility system.
"When I purchased this land more than twenty -
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <41>
two years ago, it was zoned for residential
development, at a density of ten -to -the -acre. Some
time thereafter, however, it was rezoned to a
density of two -to -the -acre. This classification
has stood. During the past two years or so, I have
held informal discussions and 'workshops' with
various Town officials, commissioners and planners
concerning residential development; but its present
zoning effectively blocks any truly feasible
residential construction and self-sufficient sewage
facility. And to create homes with omnipresent
septic tanks is, obviously, even less desirable and
even more unduly burdensome to so fine a site.
"Therefore, and particularly in light of (a)
the present County -wide Study of Master Planning
[UNDERSCORED BY THE AUTHOR] and the Study of the
Route 9 Corridor [UNDERSCORED BY THE AUTHOR]; (b)
changing conditions in the Town and along Route 9;
(c) the imminent presence of adjoining Lloyd's
Lumber Company; and (d) the 'heavy-duty' electric
power supply so nearby; I would hereby like to
request that the County Planning Department, the
Town's Growth Management Committee and the Town
Board consider a change in zoning of this land to
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <42>
P1 -1A: "PLANNED INDUSTRY."
"A well planned industrial park or similar
facility may now well be the present economic
'highest and best use' to which the land can be
put, not only for me but equally for the benefit of
the community, its taxing values and its future
planned and managed growth.
"Reasons for zoning the land as Planned
Industry, P1 -1A, [UNDERSCORED BY AUTHOR] I believe,
include the following, among others:
1. Few locations exist for desirable P1 -1A
development along the business corridor of Route 9
in the Town. This location is one.
2. Strip -development for retailing and service
uses has proliferated along the Town's portion of
Route 9, with little beauty and much haphazard
'hugger-mugger'.
3. Encouraging the planned growth of such light
industry as offices, 'think -tanks' and light
assembly operations in the Town will generate job
opportunities far above and beyond retailing and
servicing. These will enable skilled townspeople
to work near their homes.
4. Industrial positions thus generated typically
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <43>
pay better wages than do those in the servicing or
retailing fields presently surfeiting Route 9.
With residential prices in the area of the Town and
its neighbors increasing, it is desirable that
there be 'fresh' employers within the Town of
Wappinger, offering wage scales commensurate with
residents' needs, and their desires to live in the
Town.
5. Whether or not the land - if it remains zoned
for residential purposes in the future - might or
might not be affected to some extent by noise and
visual disturbance because of its proximity both to
Lloyd's Lumber and the Highway, may be a moot
point. But should such be the case, its utility
for residential use is obviously diminished.
6. On the other hand, because all but its
entranceway is completely and well set back from
Route 9, it will be readily possible to screen the
entire bulk of the 45 acres (now heavily wooded,
anyhow) and to contain any industrial park or site
with sufficient buffering totally to prevent
unacceptable impact upon adjoining parcels and upon
Highway travelers. The site is 'off -Highway' with
access to the Highway. The 'best of both possible
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <44>
worlds,' so far as community planning is concerned,
could thus prevail.
7. If the Town desires a well-rounded, well-
planned community -of -the -future, its planning
process must allow not only for homes and for
shopping, but for working as well.
8. A Planned Industry, P1 -1A [UNDERSCORED BY THE
AUTHOR] site puts far less strain on Town services
than residential development. Conversely, it
generates greater tax revenues toward such services
as the Town furnishes than it uses.
* * *
"I would be most pleased to have an
opportunity, at the convenience of the Board (or
the Town's Growth Management Committee), to discuss
this request further.
"I am simultaneously sending a copy of this
letter to the Dutchess County Planning Department
in the hope that the thoughts I have expressed
herein may be considered by it at an appropriate
stage of its current studies.
"Thank you.
"Sincerely, Barry S. Cohen."
Unsigned letter/memo from the Planning Board,
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <45>
Town of Wappinger, to the Town Board, Town of
Wappinger dated May 8, 1988 [not marked received].
"Subject: Proposed revisions to Zoning
Ordinance Public hearing May 11, 1989.
"1. The Planning Board, at its meeting of May
8, 1989, considered the referral, from the Town
Board, of the proposed changes to the zoning
ordinance, scheduled for public hearing on May 11,
1989.
"2. The general consensus of the Board is to
recommend adoption of the proposed revisions,
taking into account the following comments:]
a. The Board's review, undertaken with
the staff, perceives a problem with the
setback regulations of the Conservation Office
Park (COP) District, and recommends that they
be modified to show:
Side yard setback 50 feet
Rear yard setback 50 feet
b. In connection with the above, some
relaxation of the setbacks may be called for
when adjacent lots zoned for COP are
developed.
c. Set backs for the GB Districts
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <46>
should be reviewed in order to determine if
existing lots, mapped as GB, can conform to
the proposed regulations.
d. Lot width and yard requirements in
the R 40/80 district should be as follows:
lot front side rear
width yard yard yard
Lot size @ 40,000 125 50 25 50
Lot size @ 50,000 150 50 30 50
Lot size @ 80,000 200 50 40 50
P.
Lot width and yard requirements in
the R 20/40 district should be as follows:
lot front side rear
width yard yard yard
Lot size @ 40,000 100 35 20 40
Lot size @ 60,000 115 40 20 45
Lot size @ 80,000 125 50 25 50
"3.
With respect to the remainder of the
proposal, individual members had specific questions
and comment regarding various sections, and will
most likely address them at the public hearing."
Letter dated May 11, 1989 from Crane, Wolfson,
Roberts & Greller, attorneys [not marked received].
"Re: Proposed Zoning Amendments Property of
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <47>
John Montfort Route 9.
"Dear Board Members:
"Please be advised that the undersigned is
attorney to Mr. John Montfort who is a resident of
Cedar Hill Road, Town of Wappinger, New York.
"Mr. Montfort owns approximately 12 acres on
the westerly side of Route 9. The parcel is the
southerly most parcel of the Town of Wappinger and,
in fact, approximately 8.5+/- acres are located in
the Town of Fishkill, and 3.5+/- acres are located
in the Town of Wappinger.
"The proposed new Zoning Amendments continue
to designate the Town of Wappinger Portion R-80,
Low Density Residential. Mr. Montfort opposes any
residential classification of this property.
"Concededly, this property abutts [SIC] a
portion of the Green Fly Swamp. However, the
overwhelming percentage of the property is high
ground, dry and grade level with Route 9.
Designating this property residential is tantamount
to a confiscation of this property. The property
uses to the north, south and east are commercial in
nature. Continuation of a residential
classification of this property is totally
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <48>
inconsistent with existing land uses, good planning
practices, and, in effect, spot zoning.
"Accordingly, it is respectfully requested
that the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger amend
the proposed designation of this property from R-80
to General Business, to be consistent with similar
properties in the immediate vicinity. Again, it
must be emphasized that this property is very dry,
very usable, very conducive to commercial develop-
ment, but virtually useless for residential
purposes.
"Very truly yours, Albert P. Roberts."
Letter dated May 10, 1989 from the Department
of Planning, County of Dutchess, Roger P. Akeley,
Commissioner of Planning, Lori Tanner, Planner,
received May 10, 1989.
"To: Town Board, Town of Wappinger.
"Re: 89-206, Proposed Town of Wappinger
Zoning Amendments
"The Dutchess County Department of Planning
has reviewed the subject referral within the
framework of General Municipal Law (Article 12B,
Sections 239-1 and 239-m). After considering the
proposed action in the context of countywide [SIC]
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <49>
and intermunicipal factors, the Department finds
that the Board's decision involves a matter of some
concern.
"ACTION
"The proposed zoning amendments involve
changes to the zoning map, list of districts,
permitted uses, and bulk regulations and provide
supplementary regulations for a number of uses.
"COMMENTS
"Zoning Map
"Commercial Districts
"The proposed zoning map represents a signi-
ficant departure from the recently adopted Town of
Wappinger Land Use Plan. The town plan recommends
that commercial uses be strictly limited to reflect
community values, to minimize further degradation
of the visual environment, and to prevent addition-
al traffic problems. To this end, 'the land use
plan calls for consolidating and reducing the
existing strips along Route 9, using offices and
office parks to improve the corridor's land use
pattern' (page 156). Elsewhere in the town,
expansion of commercial uses is also meant to be
limited, as residents feel there are sufficient
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <50>
shopping facilities (page 154).
"However, the proposed zoning pattern elimin-
ates most of the office uses meant to provide an
alternative to the existing Highway Business strip
zoning. Only the larger Conservation Commercial
and Conservation Office Park Districts have been
retained, while most of the Route 9 corridor
remains Highway Business. The resulting pattern is
precisely the strip commercial zone the master plan
meant to eliminate.
"We strongly recommend against continuing this
zoning pattern. It provides for significantly more
commercial area than is necessary for the needs of
the community and will erode the viability of the
existing commercial enterprises in Wappinger. It
will adversely affect the character of Route 9, and
it will cause future traffic problems above and
beyond those already experienced.
"Furthermore, we note that a General Business
District near the airport has been proposed to
replace the existing Airport Industry District.
This is a major shift from the smaller Conservation
Commercial District proposed in the master plan,
which respected the adjacent streams and wetlands.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <51>
At the very least, the General Business designation
should be changed to Conservation Commercial.
"The Hamlet Business District along Route 82
is proposed to extend as far as the Wappinger
Creek. The master plan recommends commercial uses
on only one side of the road and a significant
buffer between developed areas and the creek bed.
"Residential Densities
"The proposed zoning indicates larger areas
for one acre residential development within the
proposed sewer district. However, this density may
not be sufficient to support the cost of sewage
treatment or provide moderately-priced housing.
One acre lots are the least efficient use of the
land and will prove more costly in the long run.
"Floodplains and Other Sensitive Areas
"The proposed zoning map fails to designate
floodprone [SIC] areas for protection, including
two of the commercial areas mentioned above. The
town master plan recommends not only floodplains
but other sensitive areas, such as Greenfly [SIC]
Swamp, for permanent preservation. Instead, many
of these areas have been designated for residential
development at densities ranging from one unit per
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <52>
half acre to one per two acres, or for commercial
development, including uses such as gas stations
and motor vehicle service and repair.
"General Comments
1. It would be appropriate to include state-
ments of intent for each of the proposed
districts.
2. Limits are placed on the size of uses
such as offices and retail establishments
in certain districts. The text should
make it clear that the restrictions apply
to the individual establishment, not the
entire building.
"Zoning Text
"Section 322
"This sentence is unclear. Perhaps the last
part of the sentence should say: 'by use of the
map upon which it appears.'
"Section 421.4, Multi -Family Residential Zones
"Home occupations and accessory apartments are
allowed in all of the single-family residential
districts but not in the RMF -3 and RMF -5 Districts.
However, these multi -family districts also allow
the development of single-family homes on
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <53>
individual lots. These accessory uses permitted in
other residential districts should be allowed if
detached housing is built. Note: This section
should reference Section 423, Multi -Family
Residence District.
"Section 421.5, Bulk Regulations for
Residential Districts
"The section of the table which deals with lot
size requirements in relation to the provision of
utilities is unclear. For those districts where
the minimum lot size is constant, regardless of
utilities, the requirement should be repeated next
to each condition. For instance, the requirement
for the R-80 district should be 80,000 with public
water and sewer, with water or sewer, and without
water and sewer.
"Section 422.1, Neighborhood Business District
"A car dealership is not an appropriate use in
a neighborhood business district. We suggest that
care dealerships be eliminated from the list of
permitted uses in this district, as they are large
land uses more appropriately sited in Highway
Business areas. If this provision is meant to
accommodate an existing use, that use should
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR ( OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <54>
instead be made non -conforming to avoid undermining
the Neighborhood Business concept.
"Section 422.25, Bulk Regulations for
Non -Residential [SIC] Districts
"The minimum lot size for the Highway Business
District is proposed to be one acre. However, many
of the permitted uses in this district require far
more room to properly accommodate the building,
parking areas and landscaping. Furthermore, the
one -acre minimum promotes the development of a
narrow strip along the road. A minimum lot size of
two acres would be appropriate for the Highway
Business District. Those uses which do not require
larger land areas should not be permitted in this
district (see comment on Section 422.3, below).
"Section 422.3, Highway Business District
"Many of the uses allowed in Highway Business
District, such as retail shops, personal service
establishments, and offices are more suited to a
General or Neighborhood Business District meant for
small-scale uses. The inclusion of these uses in
the Highway Business District will draw them away
from the other districts and will consume land
which is much more valuable for large-scale uses.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <55>
"Section 422.6, Conservation Commercial
District
"Although the bulk regulations for the
Conservation Commercial District are fairly strict,
some of the permitted uses are inappropriate, given
the purpose of the district. The master plan
states that this district is meant for areas where
'environmental constraints dictate that any
development be carefully designed and built at a
small, non -intrusive [SIC] scale.' Public garages
and motor vehicle sales do not seem to easily meet
these criteria.
"Section 422.7, Conservation Office Park
District
"The requirement that retail uses 'primarily
serve the Conservation Office Park' is vague. The
term 'Conservation Office Park' is the name of the
district, not of a use within it. Many uses other
than offices Pre allowed in the district. This
presents problems of interpretation. Secondly, it
may be difficult to ensure that a given use serves
primarily one market area over another.
"Section 42E, Planned Unit Development (PUD)
District
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <56>
"This section appears to allow a PUD on any
qualifying parcel of land. However, the zoning map
designates one specific area as a PUD. Both
approaches may be used, but perhaps this should be
clarified.
"Section 425.2
"The word 'oojectives' should be substituted
for 'subjectives' in the first sentence.
"Section 425.33
"This requirement that PUDs shall be permitted
only in areas presently containing a combination of
residential and non-residential [SIC] zoning
districts is vague. How much non -residentially
[SIC] zoned land is necessary? Section 425.4
already requires that the maximum intensity of
non-residential [SIC] uses not exceed that which
could be permitted in the corresponding
conventional zoning districts. The applicant may
intend no commercial development.
"Section 426.1 and 426.2
"There are typographical errors in these
sections.
"Section 446.701, Conversion of Existing
Dwelling
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <57>
"These provisions for conversions of existing
dwellings to two -or multi -family use are extremely
restrictive. They require a minimum lot size of
40,000 square feet, but as long as Health Depart-
ment, parking, and other site plan requirements are
met, a lot of any size should be eligible for
conversion. In addition, the maximum density of
two units per acre and minimum size of 800 square
feet will unduly limit the number of units. Very
large houses may be able to accommodate four or
more units, and it should be considered that a
single person can live very comfortably in 600
square feet. Furthermore, the restriction of this
technique to houses built prior to 1962 is
unnecessarily liniting. This date should be
changed to sometring more recent, such as 1980, or
replaced with a requirement that houses applying
for conversion be at least five or ten years old.'
"Section 446.805, Temporary Housing Units
(ECHO)
"The provisions for ECHO units should
a. StEte that the permit is granted to
the owner of the principal unit
b. Include a description of the appli-
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <58>
cation process, and
c. Include provisions for revocation of
the special permit.
"Affordable Housing
"A number of housing options are presented in
the proposed amendments. The town will allow
accessory apartments, ECHO units, conversions, and
the renting of rcoms in single family residential
zones. Planned Unit Developments and Designed
Multiple Use Developments are allowed in most areas
of the town. Mobile home parks are allowed subject
to Town Board apEroval.
"However, ncne of these options address the
affordable housing problem directly. Allowing one
or two additional units on a small percentage of
lots in low density residential areas, as permitted
by some of these techniques, is not going to have a
major impact on the availability of housing for
most people. The large planned developments
provided for in the ordinance do not allow any
significantly hither densities than the underlying
districts. There are no areas designated for truly
'high density' hcusing, such as six to ten units
per acre. The R-10 Districts and the areas zoned
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <59>
for multi -family lousing allow only three to five
units per acre an are near their maximum capacity.
"The town ma3ter plan recommends an Affordable
Housing Floating Zone which would allow density
bonuses on approved sites if a certain percentage
of units are permanently restricted to affordable
housing. As the plan states, this would 'help
balance the effects of imposing a one -or two -acre
minimum lot size on most of the town.' The plan
also recommends the use of the cluster development
concept; the Planning Board should be authorized to
mandate clustering without approval from the Town
board each time.
"In addition, the densities allowed in the
high density districts are far below those possible
with the provisicn of central water and sewer.
These areas could support eight or ten units per
acre, and as mentioned above, the provision of
water and sewer requires higher densities to avoid
being cost-prohikitive.
"One option might be to enhance the PUD
provisions with a stronger affordable housing
objective and specific performance criteria, such
as a requirement that a percentage of the units are
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <60>
affordable as defined by a county or local
ordinance.
"Other improvements that could be made include
changes to Secticn 446.701, Conversions, and
Section 446.805, Temporary Housing Units (ECHO), as
suggested in this letter.
"RECOMMENDATION
"The Department recommends that no zoning
amendments be adopted until the following seven
conditions are met:
1. The Highway Business Districts along
Route 9 are replaced by office districts
where intended by the master plan;
2. The General Business District south of
the airport is converted to a Conser-
vation Commercial District or is
eliminated;
3. The Hamlet Business District along Route
82 is restricted to one side of the state
road;
4. The minimum lot size in the Highway
Business District is increased to two
acres;
5. The R-40 districts within the proposed
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <61>
sewer dLstrict boundaries are changed to
R-20/40;
6. A distrLct is created for high density
housing (i.e., six to ten units per acre)
or
An affordable housing floating zone is
created,
or
The PUD is amended to allow at least a 20
percent density bonus for the provision
of affordable housing;
7. Standards for conversions of existing
dwellings are relaxed as called for on
pages 4 and 5 of this letter.
also suggest two techniques to improve
"We
the town's approach to providing affordable
housing:
The town should re-evaluate its mandatory
cluster provisions and consider an amendment
to transfer full authority to the Planning
Board, and the current requirement that
accessory apartments be allowed for blood
relatives only should be eliminated.
"If the Board determines to act contrary to
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <62>
our recommendations, the law requires that it do so
by a majority plus one; of the full membership and
that it notify us of the reasons for its decision.
"Roger P. Akeley, Commissioner of Planning
"By Lori Tan:ier, Planner."
Letter from McCabe and Mack, attorneys, dated
May 10, 1989, received May 10, 1989.
"Re: Property Owned by Morris Erbesh,
Inter -City Tire Property Located on West Side of
Route 9, Town of Wappinger
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"We have been retained as attorneys for Morris
Erbesh, who owns the aforementioned piece of real
property located on the west side of Route 9 in
your town. From our conversation today, I under-
stand that a new zoning ordinance will change Mr.
Erbesh's property from Commercial (HB) to
Residential (R -2C). This rezoning seems
particularly inarpropriate since Mr. Erbesh's
property contains a commercial building fronting on
Route 9 from which he operates the Inter -City Tire
Company.
"We understand that there are a very small
number of parcel: in this particular area on Route
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <63>
9 which this new zoning ordinance will change from
commercial to residential. Property fronting on
Route 9 is simply not usable as residential
property, nor is it consistent with the zoning and
use of the other properties along that section of
Route 9.
"My client feels that this treatment is
definitely discriminatory and creates an island of
residential properties in what would otherwise be a
commercial zone.
"It is hard to believe that this can be part
of any common set -erne or plan for this area of the
town and it does not deal at all with the reality
of trying to sell homes fronting on Route 9.
"Unfortunately, Mr. Erbesh will not be able to
be present at the public hearing tomorrow night but
he would like this letter to be put into the record
to note his opposition to the town rezoning in
general and specifically to the rezoning of his
parcel from Commercial (HB) to Residential (R-20).
"We trust teat the Town Board will realize the
error in the ways of this new zoning ordinance and
change it prior to approval.
"Thank you for your help and cooperation
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR ( OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <64>
herein.
"Very truly (ours, McCabe and Mack, By:
Richard A. Mitchell."
Letter dated May 10, 1989, from McCabe and
Mack, attorneys, received May 10, 1989.
"Re: Property Owned by Beverly Canter. on West
Side of Route 9, town of Wappinger GRID NO.
19-6157-04-546298-00
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"We have been retained as attorneys for
Beverly Carter, the owner of the aforementioned
real property located in your town. Mrs. Canter
just this week became aware of the fact that the
town is undergoing a rezoning and that the zoning
on the front portion of her parcel would be changed
from commercial to residential.
"In our telephone conversation today, you
confirmed that ptrsuant to the new zoning
ordinance, the front portion of Mrs. Canter's
property would crange from Commercial (HB) to
Residential (R -2C).
"While Mrs. Canter's property is currently
vacant land, just up Route 9 is the Inter -City Tire
Company property, which is certainly a commercial
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR ; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <65>
use. It is my understanding that this residential
zoning change affects only a very small number of
parcels in this carticular area of Route 9.
Property fronting on Route 9 is simply not usable
as residential property nor is it consistent with
the zoning and use of the other properties along
that section of Foute 9.
"Mrs. Canter believes that singling her parcel
out for this treatment is definitely discriminatory
and creates an iEland of residential properties in
what would otherwise be a commercial zone.
"This rezoning does not deal with the reality
of trying to see homes fronting on Route 9 and it
is inconceivable that this could be part of any
common plan or scheme for this area of Route 9.
"Mr. and Mr:. Canter will be present and plan
to speak out against this rezoning at the public
hearing tomorrow night and would ask that this
letter be put into the record in order to note
their opposition to the proposed rezoning of their
parcel from CommErcial (HB) to Residential (R-20).
"This zoning change will undoubtedly have a
substantial adverse impact on the value of Mrs.
Canter's property. It is inconceivable that the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <66>
town can justify .his taking of Mrs. Canter's land
without compensation and we trust that the Town
Board will recognize this and not change the zoning
of this parcel in the new zoning ordinance.
"Thank you fDr your help and cooperation
herein.
"Very truly yours, McCabe and Mack By:
Richard A. Mitchell."
Letter from the Pawling Savings Bank, dated
May 11, 1989, not marked received.
"Dear Mrs. Paino:
"It has recently come to our attention that
certain changes are being considered in lans [SIC]
use within the Tcwn of Wappingers. Our Bank,
recently through foreclosure, acquired commercial
property on Route 376 and feel that should this
property e rezoned for conservation office park
space that our stockholders and depositors would
suffer a severe injustice. A deep depreciation
with the changinc of the zoning would have a severe
effect on the value and in tern the ultimate sale
price.
"We would also bring to your attention that
mortgages grantec. over a period of time in the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <67>
Township would also be reduced in value and we are
greatly concerned with these values should many of
the proposed changes occur.
"I would appreciate your comments regarding
this matter.
"Sincerely, Peter Van Kleeck, Presiding."
Letter dated May 10, 1989, from Mildred
Diddell, received May 10, 1989.
"Dear Mr. Levenson -
"The proposed zoning change in the Town of
Wappinger concerns me since my family members have
been farmers and property owners in the town for
six generations.
"There are currently remaining 48 acres of
land on Route 376. This land is bounded by the
south side of Diddell Road, the east side of Route
376, and the west side of the railroad which is
currently proposed for a county highway. The
property is zoned PI-1A, which I believe is Planned
Industrial - 1 acre per site.
"It is my urderstanding that, under your
proposal, you are suggesting that this land be
zoned Residential. This proposed change concerns
me for the following reasons:
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <68>
1. The property is long and narrow,
without a great deal of depth between
Rou:e 376 and the proposed new county
highway.
2. I an concerned about the placement of
residential homes between two fast-
moving highways.
3. The property just south of this in
the Town of East Fishkill is zoned
Industrial, and it would seem consis-
tent with the adjoining property to
keep our land similarly zoned.
4. The close proximity of the Dutchess
County Airport tends to make this, in
my opinion, a viable area for
Industrial use.
5. Other than my house, this property
reEresents my last property asset,
and I am concerned that changing the
prcperty to a residential use may
dininish the value of this asset.
"I plan to E.ttend the Public Hearing on
Thursday evening and would appreciate an
opportunity to pErsonally meet with the appropriate
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <69>
officials to disc.iss this matter, if they would
have the time to see me.
"Sincerely, Mildred Diddell."
Letter dated May 4, 1989 from Peter Tomasic,
received May 9, 1989.
"Re: 6157-02 637535
"Dear Mr. Levenson:
"It has come to my attention that there will
be a Public Hearing on the new proposed Zoning
Ordinance, on May 11, 1989.
"In reviewing the document as it was published
in the Southern Cutchess News on April 26, 1989, I
find myself again in a wrestling match with regard
to the unfair zoring procedures in the Town of
Wappinger.
"I purchased the above parcel of land on March
11, 1971, at which time it was zoned residential
multi family [SIC]. Again on March 10, 1980, I
found that my prcperty was rezoned OR -1A, which at
that time I had ro problem.
"Now, much to my amazement, I read in the
paper on April 2E, 1989 the town is proposing to
rezone my property to R-20.
"I must tell you that present proposed
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <70>
rezoning is entirely unfair, because going from
OR -1A to R-20 will cause a considerable decrease
in value. All the property on the southern side of
Old Hopewell Road, up to and including my property,
has been commercial or multi -family.
"Furthermore, I would like to inform you that
if the town is thinking of putting a through road
across Old Hopewell Road, I would have no problem
giving you land to satisfy your requirement.
"I hereby request that you make every effort
to consider this request to return the above parcel
to a commercial designation.
"Thank you for any consideration you could
afford me.
"Peter Tomasic"
Letter dated May 11, 1989 from VanDeWater and
VanDeWater, attorneys, not marked received.
"Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance
"Dear Supervisor Paino and Town Board Members:
"I am pleasEd to advise you that we represent
Carl H. Swenson, Jr., who owns tracts of lands on
New Hackensack Rcad, near the Dutchess County
Airport. Under the existing Zoning Ordinance, the
parcels we are concerned about are zone AI -2A, or
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <71>
Airport IndustriaL. I have attached as Exhibit 'A'
a portion of the existing Zoning Map, showing the
location of the pIrcels in red for your reference.
"The parcel just south of the Brown
Professional Buil3ing (on the west side of New
Hackensack Road) is proposed to be rezoned to
Office. We have ao objection to that.
"However, on the east side of New Hackensack
Road, directly across from the above mentioned
parcel, and south of the Cross Court Tennis Club is
to be rezoned to 3B - General Business, and the
balance to R-20 - Residential.
"Mr. Swenson's lands are proposed to be
rezoned from Al to R-20. The lands should be
rezoned to 0 - Office. It is respectfully
submitted that it would be good planning to have
that portion that is directly across from the other
lands of Mr. Swerson which are to be rezoned as 0
to also be rezoned to '0' to a depth of 400 feet.
Attached as Exhitit 'B' is an outline of the parcel
we are bringing to your attention.
"This parcel, under the Zoning Ordinance you
adopted on March 10, 1980, was zoned AI -2A. If
there have been Eny changes in the area, it has
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <72>
been an increase of the office and commercial uses
there. There has been no change in the development
that would warrant a change in the Master Plan that
was used in 1980. Having more residential homes in
an area where planes land and take off, directly
across from a County highway, where the land will
be zoned for offices and directly adjacent to a
proposed general business zone, does not comport
with good planning. The airport location is more
suited to office development than new residences.
"The surrounding lands are owned by Carl H.
Swenson, so there is no objection from adjacent
landowners.
"It is respectfully requested that the portion
outlined in red en Exhibit 'B', be rezoned to
Office. As a second choice, it would be possible
to rezone it to general business, similar to the
zone immediately north of this parcel on New
Hackensack Road.
"Your seriots consideration of this request is
appreciated and our favorable vote is requested.
"Very truly yours, VanDeWater and VanDeWater,
BY: David D. Hacstrom."
Letter dates. May 11, 1989 from Peter C.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <73>
McGinnis, an attorney, not marked received.
"Dear Members of the Town Board of the Town of
Wappinger:
"I write as the attorney for Andrew J. King
who owns property located on Route 376 in the Town
of Wappinger which property is designated as Lot I
on a map entitled Gregory King Subdivision (Tax
Map No. 19-6359-C3-00823700). Under the proposed
amendments to the zoning ordinance of the Town of
Wappinger and the adoption of the new zoning map,
this property would be zoned as R40, which is its
current designation. The problem with this
designation is that the property immediately in the
back is designated as Conservation Office Park.
The parcel to the rear of my client's parcel is now
designated as R4C.
"The problens with the Conservation Office
Park designation for the rear parcel is that the
only access that that parcel has to Route 376 is
over a right-of-way on my client's property. If my
client's property stays as R40 and the parcel in
the back is developed, there will be heavy traffic
on the road immediately abutting the property of my
client. This will substantially lessen is value
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <74>
for residential development. In fact it would in
all likelihood make residential development
impossible.
"It is our proposal that the Town Board be
consistent with the designation of this land:
either the front and rear parcel should both be R40
for residential development or the front and rear
parcel should both be COP for Conservation Office
Park development. If a view of this real estate
were taken by any objective observer, it could
easily been seen that the road abutting the front
parcel would substantially subtract from its use as
residential property and therefore both parcels
should be designated on a consistent basis.
"Very truly yours, Peter C. McGinnis."
Letter dated May 11, 1989 from Crane, Wolfson,
Roberts and Greller, attorneys, marked "received
5/11/89 at Hearirg".
"Re: Proposed Zoning Amendments
Property of Almena Niessen, Myers
Corners Road.
"Dear Board Members:
"Please be advised that the undersigned is
attorney to Mrs. Almena Niessen who owns approx-
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <75>
imately 21 acres pf land on Myers Corners Road to
the immediate South of Wappinger (Waldbaum) Plaza.
The property is presently zoned Shopping Center and
is surrounded by properties zoned Shopping Center.
It is my understanding that the proposed zoning
amendments will change the zoning classification of
this property to Conservation Office Park. It is
respectfully submitted that at present Southern
Dutchess County has a surplus of office space. To
rezone this property to a zoning classification for
which there is no use is to make this property
unmarketable, in effect a reverse condemnation.
"This property is most suited for
commercial/retail development consistent with other
uses in the immediate vicinity. The property uses
to the North (WaEpinger Plaza), South and West are
commercial in nature and the property is approxim-
ately 100 feet from Route 9. Any change in the
zoning of this property would be totally inconsis-
tent with good planning practices.
"Accordingly, on behalf of Mrs. Niessen,
objection is made to the adoption of any proposed
change in zoning.
"Very truly yours, Stacy P. Parsons."
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <76>
Letter dated 28 March 1989 from Grace and Pete
Elder, not marked received.
"RE: Zoning change on adjoinig [SIC] property
To B/D Contracting.
"Dear Mr Levenson:
"We understand that the Town of Wappinger is
in the process of finalizing their new zoning map.
We would like to take this opportunity, prior to
the completion of the final zoning map, and request
that you rezone our property, (Tax Map #6259-03-
47605) to conform with our adjacent property (B/D
Contracting Tax Map #6259-03-503105). We under-
stand that the nea zoning for our B/D Contracting
property will be 'GB -General Business'. We are
requesting that our adjoining property be included
in with this now zoning also, in that way the two
properties will conform with each other.
"We make this request based on the track
record that we have established at our B/D
Contracting property. We have great pride in this
site, and we feel it clearly shows by what we have
done. We wish to continue this track record with
the adjoining property if given the opportunity.
Therefore, we hope that you will look favorably
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <77>
upon our request. Thank you for your time and
assistance in this matter, and we look forward to
hearing from you in the immediate future.
"Sincerely, 3race Elder, Peter Elder."
Undated lett?r from Henry Semp.
"AMENDMENTS PO THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING
ORDINANCE
"After looking at the proposed revisions to
the town zoning ordinance and changes to the zoning
map, I have come to the conclusion that the Growth
Management Commit:ee has given little or no consid-
eration to the evergrowing need of affordable
housing for middl= income, working class families.
"Rather than increasing the density of certain
areas, especially within the proposed town sewer
district where septic systems will not longer be a
pollution problem, they saw fit to raise lot size
requirements, which in turn, raises the cost to the
potential home -owner. This attitude will hardly
encourage a working family to stay in the area when
the hope of owning your own home disappears. These
are the people whp are needed to sustain the
economic well being of the community. If they
leave, who will nurse the sick, educate your child -
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <78>
ren, service your car, man your firehouse,
volunteer for ambilance duty, collect your garbage,
maintain and play your roads, etc.etc [SIC]
"With this i1 mind, I would like to offer my
suggestions regarling the 'Planned Unit Development
District' (PUD) as shown on the proposed zoning
map.
"First, as az interested next door neighbor, I
would suggest tha: the town owned property, just
north and adjoining this proposed district, be
included as part of it.
"This area consists of almost 22 inaccessible
acres of open and wooded land. It contains a
spring fed pond, trails, Branch 2 of the Wappinger
Creek, and home for deer and other wild -life.
Incidentally, not many Wappinger residents even
know of its existence.
"This recreational town property, together
with the approximate 15 acres of state protected
wetland and its buffer zone (WF 25) should help
reduce the density within this proposed PUD
district.
"With this in mind, and in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance, I would
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR ( OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <79>
further suggest that the maximum residential
density in the Planned Unit Development District Be
[SIC] increased from R-20 (1/2 acre) to R-10 (1/4
acre).
"Finally, I would like to see one neat
affordable home situated on each 1/4 acre lot as
suggested, rather than groups of clustered,
unattractive unite, such as we now see on Myers
Corners and Spook Hill Roads.
"Henry Semp."
SUPERVISOR PUNO: Thank you Elaine. Received
also were two letters, one just came in today from
the Dutchess Coun:y Department of Planning, and the
other items receded today was from the Town of
Wappinger Plannin3 Board. The Planning Board says
that it has considered the referral from the Town
Board for the pro?osed changes to the Zoning Ordin-
ance, and the general consensus is to recommend
adoption of the proposed revision taking into
account the folks' comments and it goes on to
discuss some set packs, side yard set backs,
relative to the Cpnservation Office Park district,
and asks that relaxation of the set backs called
for when adjacent lots are developed. And, it
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <80>
further talks abort a General Business District,
R-40 and R-80 Districts and also lot widths in R-20
and R-40 Districts. Also, the proposal is to have
individual members' comments by going through the
various sections likely to be addressed at the
Public Hearing.
Before we go on, I want to point out that the
Town has been, as you know, looking at revisions to
the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance since April
1986. We created the Growth Management Committee
since that time, which consists of three Town Board
Members, Councilwoman Smith, Councilman Farina,
myself, and we also have included the entire Town
of Wappinger Plarning Board. Ever since April 1986
we have been working very closely with the Zoning
Administrator Herb Levenson, the Town Attorney, Tom
Wood to my left here, and also the Town Planner, to
my right
in April
Dutchess
over here, Ray Arnold, and we hired, back
1986 Holly Thomas who
is also with
County Flanning Department, to work
the
with
us on the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance
revisions. This is the outgrowth of the work done
by the Growth Maragement Committee. The actual
changes were written by Herb Levenson, Ray Arnold
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <81>
and Holly Thomas, and reviewed in a number of
meetings by the Growth Management Committee. I am
sure we are all 1Doking for comments on the zoning.
Each of us on the Growth Management Committee have
our own ideas, top.
To continue Dn, though, the Dutchess County
Planning Department did review it, and they
forwarded to us saveral recommendations, which says
that "The Department recommends that no zoning
amendments be adopted until the following seven
conditions are me::
1. The Higlway Business Districts along
Route 9 are replaced by Office Districts
where i:ztended by the Master Plan;
2. The General Business District south of
the airport is converted to a Conser-
vation Commercial District or is
elimina':ed;
3. The Ham:.et Business District along Route
82 is restricted to one side of the state
road;
4. The minj.mum lot size in the Highway
Business: District is increased to two
acres;
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <82>
5. The R-43 Districts within the proposed
sewer district boundaries are changed to
R-20/40;
6. A district is created for high density
housing (i.e., six to ten units per acre)
or
An affo:dable housing floating zone is
created,
or
The PUD is amended to allow at least a 20
percent density bonus for the provision
of affo -dable housing;
7. Standaris for conversions of existing
dwellings are relaxed as called for on
pages 4 and 5 of this letter.
"We also suggest two techniques to improve
the town's approa;h to providing affordable
housing:
The tow:i should re-evaluate its mandatory
cluster provsions and consider an amendment
to transfer =u11 authority to the Planning
Board, and the current requirement that
accessory apartments be allowed for blood
relatives on:_y should be eliminated."
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <83>
That basical.y is their comments.
At this time I would first of all like to
introduce, or rei:itroduce, Tom Wood, who will give
a presentation on the SEQRA process and plan, and
then Ray Arnold avid co -planner Holly Thomas, will
address you. After that we will go down the list
of those who signed up, who wish to speak this
evening.
Tom?
MR. WOOD: Tank you. In December --
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Excuse me, also, I would
like to add, if wo have too many people in the
auditorium, the Town Attorney indicated, that a
letter form Mark .ieberman, the Fire Inspector,
said that we may :lave to adjourn to another
evening. But, we'll see.
Tom?
MR. WOOD: Tiank you. In December 1988 the
Town Board sought and obtained Lead Agency status
under provisions of SEQRA, and in accordance with
the rules what they are attempting to do by virtue
of the Public Heaping, is while they are in the
process to curren-:ly hold the Public Hearing and
receive the publi,::'s comments, and they will be
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <84>
considered not only as to this Board's consider-
ation on the amendments themselves, but also the
Board's deliberations with respect to making a
determination of significance under SEQRA which the
Board would next have to address, prior to giving
further consideration on the amendments. And,
basically, after the Public Hearing this evening,
there are three potential routes that the Board can
take. One being no action, and then they no longer
have to follow the procedure. Secondly, since this
is a Type I action, there's a presumption that an
Environmental Impact Study will have to be prepared
and the Town Board has to make a determination
based upon the comments tonight. And, their review
of the impact that these amendments may or may not
have on the environment, that is as to positive or
negative.
If it's positive, they have to direct a Draft
Environmental Impact Study be performed to assess
all of the potential environmental impacts these
amendments and proposals may or may not have. Then
there is the holding of additional Public Hearings,
limited solely to the consideration of the DEIS.
Then following the Public Hearings we may also have
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <85>
to have a further, Final Environmental Impact Study
prepared, and then make a determination on the
findings which would be their assessment as to what
environmental impacts need to be addressed,
mitigating factors they have, and we then be
allowed to go and consider the amendments.
And, obviously, if there's changes made to the
amendments that were advertised for tonight's
hearing, and your comments are received, then the
Board has to conduct additional Public Hearings at
the end of this process with respect to the exact
wording of the amendments and map changes. If they
were to make negative determination, they then
proceed to vote on the amendments.
This evening is merely a Public Hearing to
receive comments and in -put. It is not a formal
voting session of the Board. The Board is not
making any determination this evening. Your
Comments will be considered by the Board for the
full purpose of both effect on considering of the
amendments later on, and initially on consideration
with respect to what declarations should be made
under SEQRA.
Now, I will turn this over to Ray.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <86>
MR. ARNOLD: I am going to give you an
overview of how we got to this point. The proposed
changes in the regulations is really comprised of
two different distinct areas. One is the area of
regulations themselves, use and bulk regulations.
And, the second is mapping of those various
districts according to the proposed plan adopted by
the Planning Board.
In our review of the Zoning Ordinance, it was
pointed out by the Planning Board, among other
people, that the Ordinance itself is very hard to
decipher and follow. Therefore what we did,
initially, was to list all of the various uses in
each of the districts, individually. In looking at
the Ordinance, now it is a cumulative Ordinance, as
you read down, you have to refer back to the prior
Sections to find out what uses are allowed. What
we did was we put together, for each of the exist-
ing districts, that is the Neighborhood District,
the Shopping Center District, the Office Park Dist-
rict, etcetera, all of the regulations that pertain
to those districts. On the wall are the printed
charts, sheets on the side, [INDICATING] referring
to the green -bar sheets, now. That's the existing
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <87>
regulations, as they exist in each of the
districts.
We've added two new districts, based upon the
concepts that evolved out of the Master Plan. One
is R-40/80; another is R-20/40. And, that's
intended to be part of the Master Plan. And, the
intended statements for each of these types of
districts is trying to show what the Plan is trying
to achieve. That's what we followed in approaching
the bulk on use and regulations. I'll go into that
later one.
We did those areas subject to, perhaps, no
water or sewer, and subject to some water and sewer
and we've put them into a special category. We did
revise it to some extent. The bulk regulations,
they are the set -backs, the amount of coverage,
building heights, etcetera. And, in each of the
districts, we then restructured each district so
that we had a group of uses that allowed, by right,
groups of uses allowed by Special Permits, and also
groups that are accessory uses that are permitted
by right, provided they are part of another partic-
ular use.
Last and not least, with respect to the bulk
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <88>
regulations, we set some standards for some partic-
ular uses. When you do special use permits for the
type of uses you want standard, so that they can
conform to what your basic concepts are in the
plan.
We also found that some districts and some of
the uses, by right, in some of the districts, were
of a nature that required some special consider-
ations. We did not want major types of larger uses
such as library which was allowed by the old
Ordinance, in residential districts, and allowed in
the new Ordinance, or proposed Ordinance, in the
new Residential Districts. We wanted bulk around
it in terms of minimum lot size, set at two acres.
We tried to define it and set it for all of these
in the proposed Ordinance, and that's the Section
of the Ordinance -- Section 446.500 series, or 800
series, and essentially we did the same thing with
respect to Non-residential Districts. We elimin-
ated, or combined in one case -- we combined
Highway Business One -Acre District together with
Highway Two -Acre Business District, finding that
over the course of reviewing development of this
many lots, are less then minimum two acres in some
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <89>
districts. We did not feel, during our review,
that such a delineation between one and two acres
in Highway Business was that significant. So we
combined the two districts, and eliminated PI,
which is Planned Industrial District.
As a result of the Growth Management Committee
and a survey of the Town residences, those are the
districts that are eliminated in Non-residential,
and we added three new districts. One is Conser-
vation Commercial District, Hamlet Mixed Use Dist-
rict -- the Hamlet District was designed -- when
Holly goes through it, she will explain where it's
designed for. The Conservation Commercial District
was designed to take into account environmental
sensitivity of some of the sites, with the same
basic structure of the Zoning Ordinance with
respect to the use and bulk regulations. Once
again, on the other bar chart, towards the rear of
the room is the existing regulations for the Non-
residential District and between the two of them is
the printed newspaper, which gives the proposed
regulations. So, if you have any particular
questions about them, you can refer to that. And,
if you still have questions I will be happy to
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <90>
answer them at any time after the meeting.
I believe that Holly will now give her over-
view of the mapping. And, if there are any explan-
ations needed in terms of uses, I will give that.
Holly?
MS. THOMAS: The two maps on this side of the
room [INDICATING] here, are the proposed zoning to
be considered tonight, and the existing zoning.
Those who did not look at them before, if you can
do so during the break later, it should clarify
what changes are really proposed. There are
several residential categories under the existing
and proposed Zoning, and we'll be starting with
those.
The lowest density residential zone in the
Town is R-80, meaning the minimum lot size is
80,000 square feet. In the existing Zoning, you
can see where that is, for the most part. There
are some areas down here [INDICATING] on the east
side of Route 9; the Route 9 border going up to the
Village; and the other areas to the western edge,
along the Hudson River. And, here's Myers Corners
Road [INDICATING] east -west, and the Town Hall is
here [INDICATING]; Route 376, and the airport, and
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <91>
All Angels Hill Road [INDICATING], going towards
East Fishkill.
We are proposing the R-80 Zone continuing to
exist in this area long the Hudson River [INDICAT-
ING] and a slightly different area, on the east
side of Route 9 between Greenfly Swamp, the
wetlands is proposed to remain the same, and
Smithtown Road, are proposed to be R-80, which is
this area in here [INDICATING], and in the southern
part, south of Ketchamtown Road.
The rationale behind the R-80 Zone is these
areas are not to be sewered or provided with
central water and sewer systems, and have environ-
mental problems. And, a higher lot size, or
density without central water and sewer is a
problem environmentally.
This heavy line here [INDICATING] is the
extent of the proposed central utility service area
for the Town, and is fundamental to what the plan
is based on. We realized that a lot of development
activity that's occurring needs to be based upon a
central utility system. What you see is only the
R-80 areas outside this proposed central utility
area [INDICATING].
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <92>
The new zones are R-40/80 located in the north
east corner of the Town, outside the central
utility section, and some areas proposed down here
in the south western corner, outside of the central
utility area [INDICATING]. The R-40/80 District is
this -- are these areas that could be served by
central water and sewer at some time but probably
not in the near future of developments as proposed
without the central system. Two acre minimum lot
size is required of developments proposed within
the central system, conforming to the Town Utility
Plan, that contributes to the overall need.
[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER INTERRUPTED MS.
THOMAS' PRESENTATION.]
MR. ARNOLD: At this time, the regulations as
advertised, and when we wrote them, we applied the
R-80 regulations to all three types of developments
in that zone. We have since reviewed that, and
changed our position, upon recommendation of the
Planning Board. In such a zone, if you allowed
density of R-80 you can build with the bulk regu-
lations, but if you are allowed a density of R-40
you are allowed to build at the bulk regulations of
R-40. That's one change.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <93>
The second thing is the Conservation Office
Park. We have changed, or recommended change in
the set -back for that. That will be explained more
fully when we come to it.
Holly?
MS. THOMAS: The same principle that Ray out-
lined comes in for R-20/40 zones.
The R-40 existing zone, is zoned 40,000 square
feet, one acre per lot. The larger R-40 areas are
within the proposed central water and sewer systems
for the most part, and outside the central water
and sewer R-40 on the proposed map, reflecting the
existing developments locations. We don't see too
much point in zoning them R-80 here [INDICATING]
because they are closer to one -acre lot density;
and the R-40 are in the south west section, for the
most part are developed too, and the intent is
outside the water and sewer areas to have lower
density.
The R-20/40 is a new zone, and the intent
within the proposed central utility service area,
and it is to allow half -acre lots, and where the
concentration is closer to the Route 9 corridor,
the central core of the Town, located here -- the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <94>
R-20/40, along the western edge of Route 9, here
[INDICATING]. And, for some reason central water
and sewer that meets the Town's needs are not
provided. 40,000 square feet is the minimum lot
size.
The next residential area is the R-20 and R-15
and R-10, which is 20,000 square feet, 15,000
square feet, and 10,000 square feet, and is an
existing zone. And, where they show up on the pro-
posed zoning map is reflecting in the existing
developmental patterns. We need not assign R-20,
R-15 or R-10 to new undeveloped areas. They are
three multi -residential, and five residential
existing developments, existing apartment complexes
or high density uses within the Town.
Going back a second, up here [INDICATING] is
R-20 outside Route 376 and along DeGarmo Hill Road,
there's an extensive area of R-20 on the south side
of Myers Corners Road, and an R-5 apartment cluster
here [INDICATING] reserved open space, and a fairly
high pocket along Route 9, and around Hughsonville,
and some areas along Route 9-D.
MR. ARNOLD: With respect to residential uses,
there are very few different uses that were
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <95>
proposed, or removed, from the existing residential
uses. Most notable is that we added, as a Special
Permit, in all Residential Districts, temporary
housing units, economic housing units, that we will
get into later on. But, review of the regulations
will show you that there is very little difference
in the use regulations between what is proposed in
the new Zoning Ordinance, and what was allowed in
the present Ordinance.
And, with respect to multi -family units, we
tried to define what we felt were existing
permitted uses, into two Multi -family Districts of
MH -3 and MH -5.
MS. THOMAS: Non-residential categories con-
sist of, the first one is COP, Conservation Office
Park. This is a new concept. What it really is,
is the old Office Research, ten -acre zone, in
slightly different form and location. The intent
of the Conservation Office Park is to allow office
research development in the areas that have
environmental problems, but also areas that present
little opportunity for the Town to get diversified
employment, through office parks, in campus style
settings, which respect the environmental features
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <96>
on the site.
Where it is concentrated is on the east side
of the airport, here [INDICATING] -- here's Route
376 [INDICATING] and a large COP zone, which you
come over the existing zoning, which is mostly now
Office Research 10 -acre, and Airport Industry, and
Route 376 is over here [INDICATING] going to
Fishkill, which is currently Planned Industry,
which is proposed for Conservation Office Park.
And, the area currently Planned Industry 1 -acre on
the west side of All Angels Hill Road, down here
[INDICATING] proposed to be COP, and also this area
here [INDICATING] at the intersection of Route 9
and Middlebush Road, is proposed to be changed from
Shopping Center to COP.
Most of the areas are wetlands, and flood
plains making development of the sites not imposs-
ible, but challenging. You would have to come in
with a good low density design.
MR. ARNOLD: Major differences between the old
regulations and the new regulations is in the old
regulations residential uses were permitted with-
out any regard to -- without any other restrictions
and by right, in Office Research any principle use
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <97>
permitted in most restricted adjoining Residential
District [SIC] -- in other words, if you have an
Office Research District you can develop it for
residential use, which is completely contrary to
the plan that was evolved by the Board.
What we did -- there is a requirement for
Special Permits in Conservation Office Park
Districts to allow design of multi -use developments
under Special Permits by the Town Board, subject to
the requirements of the Ordinance. The requirement
did not change, and that use did not change, to
give the Town some control over indiscriminate
residential development on parcels of land that was
considered for economic development. It gives the
Town more control. It does not say it can not be
developed, but a design plan can be worked out with
the developer and the Town Board. That's the major
difference between the old and new regulations.
The second thing is all through the Ordinance
we have provided for the ability to have day care
facilities in most of your non-residential areas.
It's a problem within the County, and other
Counties.
MS. THOMAS: The next category is offices.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <98>
The intent is provide alternatives to some
commercial zoning existing in the Town. In the
past, where you have smaller scale offices,
you see
it detracts for the most part from not plagued by
environmental problems, no wetlands or floodplains.
There's two proposals. One is along New Hackensack
Road, the north side, southwest of the airport.
The other is along the east part of Route 9, in the
corridor, but not fronting on Route 9, in the
southern part of the Town. The office zone was
originally considered as a replacement zone for
Highway Business areas, along the Route 9 corridor.
But, as the Zoning Map evolved -- here's the areas
[INDICATING].
MR. ARNOLD: The major difference between the
two, use is the same, the question of taking resid-
ential uses out, by right, and requiring it under
-- allowing it under multiple use development,
Special Permit, by the Town Board. And, day care
facilities will also be allowed by right in the
particular district. Those are the only
differences between the old and the new Ordinance.
MS. THOMAS: Commercial Conservation Zone is
new, and is similar to Conservation Office Park, in
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <99>
that it's a specially zoned area, created for areas
environmentally constrained, as to physical
location within the community. It's suitable for
commercial, but could not be developed as other
sites. The Commercial Conservation area exists
along Route 9-D, on the east side of Old State
Road, here [INDICATING] and also this area up at
the intersection of New Hackensack Road, and Route
376, in this area here [INDICATING] where there's a
flood plain back here, as you can see. If you can
see, if you take a closer look, these areas
adjacent to the proposed Commercial Conservation
site, are not suitable for residential, and if
designed carefully, low level intensity, it can be
used for commercial.
MR. ARNOLD: The basic use is similar to
Neighborhood Business District use as in the old
Ordinance. As proposed in the new Ordinance
MS. THOMAS: The Neighborhood Business zone is
an existing zone in the Town, and the intent of the
Neighborhood Business is to provide small scale
mixed retail uses, services, for neighborhood areas
as compared to shopping center or major retail fac-
ilities found along the Route 9 corridor. The
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <100>
intent is to serve a smaller area.
Where we have existing Neighborhood Business
areas in the Town is where we proposed to continue
the zoning. One area is the intersection of Myers
Corners Road and DeGarmo Hills. If you think of a
7-Eleven and one or two other auxiliary stores --
that's the Neighborhood Business concept now in the
community. And, the Neighborhood Business zone is
adjacent to the conservation zone, down here on
Route 9-D [INDICATING] east of Old State Road.
MR. ARNOLD: The uses are primarily,
principally, the same uses allowed in the existing
Neighborhood Business District, and adding four
additional uses, which we felt could fit into the
Neighborhood Business District. One is funeral
homes, the second is day care centers or nursery,
and library is the third, and museum or art gallery
and temporary outdoor sales in accordance with
Section 446.804.
And, digressing a moment, as you go through
it, and see the temporary outdoor sales, in many
districts we felt a need to have some element of
control on the type of sales that occur on days
like Easter, Christmas and other holidays where
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <101>
there is a short period of time for sales, like
with Christmas trees, for example. This way we
have it written, and we have the Zoning Adminis-
trator who is authorized to issue permits for a
short period of time, for this type of use. We
have listed them in the Ordinance, and we've tried
to take care of that particular use, and we've
authorized four additional uses within the Neigh-
borhood Business District, that was not originally
in the Ordinance.
MS. THOMAS: General Business is next --
Highway Business, I'm sorry, occurs in the Route 9
corridor and comparing it to the map, you see it
continues Highway Business going -- in the pattern
of Route 9.
MR. ARNOLD: The Highway Business District
has many uses. It's almost all encompassing where
we have allowed many uses which are associated with
transient -- not transient development, but trans-
ient clientele, retail uses, transient clientele,
and one of the least restrictive areas as
regulated.
MS. THOMAS: Then General Business zone and
there are a few areas. It's an existing zone, and
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <102>
it appears in the proposal under areas that are
developed already with general business type uses,
with one exception visiting the pattern, on Route
376, near the airport is a General Business
District, and there's an area south of that inter-
section, and next to the Conservation Commercial
zone, but developed already, and designated as
General Business on this map [INDICATING] and there
is also a facility along the River. It's not quite
the same scale as Neighborhood Business, and it
does not serve that small an area, and yet it's not
a Highway Business. There's no pattern of use
along the major highways.
MR. ARNOLD: We can add the same businesses
such as funeral, library, temporary outdoor sales,
to the district, with the same regulations as in
the Neighborhood Business District, with the use of
special use permits, adding lumber supply,
wholesale lumber sales, to accommodate a lumber
yard and sale operation, and also motel would be
allowed in this district, since it's mapped close
to the airport, and there are existing motels
within the district -- it was not to be used
extensively throughout the Town, but confined to
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <103>
existing areas when we wrote the regulations.
MS. THOMAS: A new area, General Business, is
an emerging district at the south side of the air-
port, south side of New Hackensack Road, here
[INDICATING]. Most of it is now zoned Airport
Industrial, 2 -acre, and proposed to be General
Business.
The next one is Shopping Center. That is pro-
posed to be reduced in the Town, and covers exist-
ing shopping centers in the Town, along the Route 9
corridor, and Middlebush-Myers Corner Road area.
MR. ARNOLD: With respect to the shopping
center, we did not change them to much. We did add
a day care center, and we did add a place of
worship and parish house or rectory. We also moved
hospitals or clinics into shopping centers, taking
them out of all of the residential areas, and
putting them in here, by Special Permit.
Permit and design, municipal use, development
is utilized as a design element to achieve both
acceptable design in terms of aesthetics and
acceptable development in terms of use. And,
that's shown in this particular district.
MS. THOMAS: Hamlet Business District is the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <104>
next one. It's a mixed use category for the Town.
It exists in the Town in the south east portion of
the Town, in Hughsonville, this area on Route 9-D
[INDICATING]. The Hamlet Center is intended to be
a variety of small businesses which could include a
small school, small center, small scale.
MR. ARNOLD: In the Hamlet Business District,
mixed business, there was a lot of uses listed, for
really taking care of the uses that existed basic-
ally [SIC].
MS. THOMAS: Airport Industry is next, and
that is self-evident, and located at the airport,
and is proposed to be reduced in size, compared to
the existing zone, and scaled back to cover the
area that's directly affected by the airport. The
airport is this triangular piece [INDICATING] and
on the approach pattern, several constraints as to
what could be built exist.
MR. ARNOLD: Uses allowed at the Airport
District is cut back from what was allowed
initially. We have, by Special Permit, warehousing
and storage businesses, not to include plumbing
electrical and similar contracting establishments.
[INTERRUPTION BY UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER.]
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <105>
We've had questions about it, and that might not be
a good area to locate that type of small contractor
facility, being close to the airport. It's not the
type of use to be permitted by the proposed regu-
lations, at this time.
MS. THOMAS: Next is Planned Unit Development
zone, which occurs so far in one location in the
Town, and we're proposing to make this area at
Myers Corners Road [INDICATING] at the Pizzagalli-
IBM site on the north side.
PUD. What it means is what is intended in the
Town Plan, is mixed retail office uses that is
presented by one development design architecturally
integrated, pedestrian scaled, and mixed office
retail that will serve this intensive residential
area around it. It would be in a prime location in
the Town, but not an overwhelming large retail
complex of the scaled industry along Route 9. This
is geared more towards pedestrian uses, a variety
of small shops and offices.
MR. ARNOLD: Additional uses in the PUD is
housing various forms of recreation, and based on
designs to be provided, a large scale community
type of development without hitting a regional
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <106>
aspect. It would also be designed to address the
"question of affordable concept" within the overall
plan regulations for the PUD, and are the same as
exist in the Ordinance now.
There's three different changes in the whole
1820 paragraph in the Ordinance that's different
from the existing one. Two pertain to when you are
designing something, you have to take into account
permanent open space, networking throughout the
Town, and that was added; and another section, the
district as existed in the Ordinance required a
change of zone and still requires a change of zone
for anything that's not mapped.
However, with the proposed mapping, there's an
area that's proposed for PUD, and therefore does
not require application for change of zoning, and
that language was put in.
The third point also had to do with taking
account of the open space plan for the Town.
Other than those three items, nothing is diff-
erent from the original, as far as regulations.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you Ray and Holly.
What we will do now is open this up to the Public.
[INTERRUPTION BY UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER.]
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <107>
SUPERVISOR PAINO: -- I will go through the
list, and call upon those who signed up to speak.
We have a rather large crowd this evening, and I
want to give everybody an opportunity to speak.
The purpose of the meeting is to have the Town
Board and the Growth Management Committee hear your
comments concerning the proposed Zoning Ordinance
revisions. We only ask that you keep your comments
as brief as possible, make your point, and move on
to the next person to permit all to have an oppor-
tunity to speak. We don't want to be here until
all hours of the evening or morning. Also, if
someone has already stated what you were going to
state, then please let us know that, but you don't
have to repeat everything that's already been said.
The first speaker on the list is Joel Cantor.
MR. CANTOR: Joel Cantor. We, my wife and I,
own a parcel of land on South Fowlerhouse Road,
next to Inter -City Tire. There were two statements
made during the presentation that are inaccurate
regarding our land. It was said that we would not
create new R-20 areas of undeveloped land, and the
statement was made that Highway Business land would
generally be preserved on Route 9. Both statements
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <108>
are inaccurate, as to my land, on Route 9. We have
HB land on Route 9, and converted R-20 land, and
frankly I think that is absurd because land
developed on Route 9 can not be denied what's
happening there. Frankly I understand the unhappi-
ness with the people on Fowlerhouse -- South
Fowlerhouse road, but solving their problems should
not be taken by infringing on my rights to solve
their problems. There should be more control over
the looks of the facade on the buildings, but not
infringe upon my rights as a land owner. If you
pass this you've confiscated my Route 9 land, and
there's no way to build a house on Route 9, because
no one will purchase it to live on Route 9, and
live next door to Inter -City Tire. That's confis-
cation of my property.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you. Peter Tomasic?
MR. TOMASIC: I got my land in 1971, and at
the time it was zoned for Single Family zoning
[SIC], and in 1980 it was rezoned to OR. Now I
read in the paper that you're rezoning it to Single
Family again. That's unfair to me.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: What's the location?
MR. TOMASIC: 206 Old Hopewell Road, three
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <109>
hundred feet off Route 9. Presently I own a
business in the Town of Wappinger, and I intend to
build the business on my own property. I would
like the property to be rezoned for Neighborhood
Business.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Rezoned to Neighborhood
Business?
MR. TOMASIC: Yes. Please. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you. Frank
Buyakowski?
MR. BUYAKOWSKI: Before I make a statement, I
would like to ask a question. You read the letter
from the Dutchess County Department of Planning,
and that's correct that they've voted against this
proposed zoning?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Voted with seven recommend-
ations, and without changing those recommendations
they are saying if we don't go along with their
recommendations, they will say no. Again, we are
taking comments from everybody this evening. And,
I will be having one or two, or more Growth Manage-
ment Committee meetings. The first meeting, for
which I would like to have Monday night, at 7:30 to
review the comments made this evening. Also the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <110>
letters we have received from the individuals, will
be reviewed. We will have another meeting after
that, after we all receive copies of the transcript
of this evening's Public Hearing. So, we will be
having more than one meeting. And, if necessary,
we will go out for further Public Hearings.
MR. BUYAKOWSKI: Going back to that, I am
surprised because the County, according to the
first statement made an important rule in the
formation of the zoning.
I own three hundred acres of land on the north
east side of the airport, Maloney Road and Route
376, 140 acres used to be zoned Airport Industry,
2 -acres; 160 acres or 110 was residential, and
putting that property now into the COP, and you've
taken away Airport Industry. That leaves the only
land for Airport Industry County property, because
you've taken away all the privately owned land.
That means the that County does not have to come to
the Town in order to come in with site plans. I
believe I'm correct on that.
And, I think that Airport Industry is really a
smoke screen. You really don't have any industry
in the Town. If you look at zoning, there's
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <111>
nowhere in the Town, zoning, that permits any type
of manufacturing. That's the problem.
And, why I have a problem with COP zoning,
it's almost, really, useless. One reason is that
it's office. You can saturate the Town with office
space, big office spaces, and you really don't have
any that will handle it. You have to get more of a
mix -- from Office zoning and COP zoning.
I know it was brought out by the Plan, but I
want to show you this 36 -acre parcel [INDICATING]
that's supposed to be COP zoning. When you take in
all the side lines, and front lines, and going back
from the boundaries, it leaves you with no develop-
ment property.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: That was one of the
comments that the Town Planning Board made relative
to that.
MR. BUYAKOWSKI: What you should do with the
COP zone is open it up more, put it into allowing
certain types of manufacturing under Special
Permits, so the Board will have some type of
control.
You're planning a fifty million dollar, or
sixty million dollar, whatever it's going to be,
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <112>
sewer. All of the Town's going to be in a sewer
district, and you're not permitting manufacturing,
and other types of businesses in the Town. Who's
going to pay for all of the sewer and water?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Richard Cantor?
MR. CANTOR: The thrust of many of the
comments I was planning to make have been addressed
sufficiently, or more accurately, for the most
part.
The proposed environmental assessment, written
comments, include attachments by some. In response
to your request to be brief, I will try.
Are physical environmental aspects touched,
superficially, or only economic environmental
aspects, for reasons set forth in the written
submissions, we believe you're not in position to
properly issue negative declarations, and I urge
one of two things, for reasons submitted. Either
you go back and prepare a formal, detailed, Envir-
onmental Assessment, or try to make a positive
declaration, and deal with the issues in the Draft
Environmental Impact level, giving consideration to
the fact that we have rezoning.
Thank you.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <113>
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Denis or Nancy Chambers?
MR. CHAMBERS: I'm just a little guy, living
down here [INDICATING] in the corner, on Route 82.
I sent a letter before it all came out. It stated
that I want to be part of the Hamlet Business. I
am along side of a little
SUPERVISOR PAINO: I recall your letter.
MR. CHAMBERS: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Andreas Metzger?
MR. METZGER: I'm speaking on behalf of my
family. We own a portion of property [INDICATING]
here, in R-40 -- proposed R-40. It had been zoned
R-20. I would like to see it changed back to
either R-20 or R-20/40 for reasons given are that
our neighbors' sizes of their lots in the neighbor-
hood, and also it's more affordable, in view of the
people moving into the area. I feel that the
increase in the size of the lot to one acre first
of all is somewhat inflexible for our situation
because some lots need to be slightly smaller than
R-40 regulations to accommodate planning designs.
Also, for those people who plan to move into
the area, maybe able to more afford housing in the
area. We have a need for lower housing costs in
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <114>
the area, and I feel it's important that we address
them.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Stacy Parsons?
[NO RESPONSE.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Timothy Buist?
MR. BUIST: I'm here to objection on behalf of
[UNINTELLIGIBLE NAME] and I will read from a letter
which I will submit. She owns approximately 21
acres of land on Myers Corners Road, immediately to
the south of the Wappingers-Walbaums Plaza, and
it's currently zoned Shopping Center, and is
surrounded by properties presently zoned Shopping
Center. My understanding is that the proposed
zoning will change the classification to Conser-
vation Office Park. We respectfully submit that at
the present time, Southern Dutchess has a surplus
of office space and to rezone it for a classifi-
cation of no use makes the properties unmarketable.
It's reverse condemnation. It's most suited for
commercial or retail development consistent with
other uses in the immediate vicinity. Uses to the
north, south, and west are commercial in nature.
This property is approximately 100 feet from Route
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <115>
9. Any change of zoning of the property is incon-
sistent with the surrounding area.
On behalf of the [UNINTELLIGIBLE NAME] I am
objecting to the adoption of the proposed changes
in the zoning.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Dr. Patricia Heaney?
DR. HEANEY: I'm in agreement. I'm in
Southern Dutchess as a Chiropractor, tax payer, and
property owner, and I am a member of the Greater
Southern Dutchess Chamber of Commerce, representing
900 business people. And, after extensive research
on the part of the Economic Impact Committee, the
following position statement was unanimously voted
upon by the Board of Directors, which I will read
to you now.
"The Greater Southern Dutchess Chamber of
Commerce opposes the proposed Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance as it is written because it is
counter-productive to the long term economic
stability of the Town.
"There is no provision for new multi -family
housing. The only areas zoned for multi -family
units are those areas in which apartment currently
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <116>
exist. There is a desperate need for housing which
our young families can afford to rent or buy. Bus-
inesses in the area find it almost impossible to
find employees to fill their openings. Many of our
young families as moving from the area because they
are unable to find decent housing. The same
situation is facing our ever growing elderly pop-
ulation also. This plan further restricts this
essential growing need of our community.
"Secondly, this plan had no Industrial -
Manufacturing zone which further limits the future
economic stability of the Town. Without the
ability to expand the Town's manufacturing
capability, it restricts the future tax base, which
translates into higher and higher property taxes
for those home owners who already live in the Town
of Wappinger.
"Thirdly, the highway business zoning along
Route 9 is a narrow strip along the highway which
will create more traffic problems. It will ruin
the smooth traffic flow because there will be a
need for a proliferation of curb cuts. The zoning
should go much deeper along Route 9 at designated
points to allow for several businesses to be built
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <117>
in an area, and, therefore, eliminating the need
for so many curb cuts.
"Finally, we ask for a complete and thorough
study of the environmental and economic impact of
this proposal. The environmental assessment form
submitted with the proposal is less than ten per-
cent completed. Most questions have not been
answered. The Town must be as responsible as it
requires business, that is to thoroughly study and
report the complete environmental impact of this
plan to its citizens.
"In closing, the Chamber recommends that the
following be included in the plan: Provision for
higher density of homes; increase areas for new
multi -family and manufactured homes; deeper highway
business zoning along Route 9; allow for increased
density in residential zones if a percentage of the
housing is priced in the range that will allow our
young families and seniors to live in the Town; and
create a new Industrial -Manufacturing Zone."
And, I have some copies of this statement to
pass out, if you wish.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Thank you. Mr. Swenson?
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <118>
[NO RESPONSE.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: David Hagstrom?
MR. HAGSTROM: I'm David Hagstrom, and an
attorney representing Carl Swenson. In this regard
I have an additional letter, and I will supply you
with copies, plus one for the Town Clerk and the
Board.
Attached to the letter you will see an exhibit
attached, which marks the existing zoning, and the
past zoning. Carl owns lands near the airport,
just south of the airport. And, the existing
zoning you can see -- it's right here [INDICATING]
and is zoned Airport Industrial, near where
Brown's Professional Building is located, and Cross
Court Tennis is. On one side, towards the airport,
is proposed to be for offices, and to do so
recognizes good planning, so not all of the
comments are negative tonight. This one is
positive because on this side of the road recog-
nizes the existing developments, which is a
professional building, and recognizes a building
which is in the process of being developed as;
offices.
However, you don't recognize that you've
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <119>
turned Airport Industrial land into R-20 and this
portion here [INDICATING] which we submit should be
similarly zoned, being in conformance with the
prior designation of the land as Airport
Industrial, leaving similarly zoned lands facing
each other. It had formerly been zoned Airport
Industrial to a depth of 400 feet. I submit that
it should be zoned Office, and in a worse-case-
scenario, consider General Business. But, we would
request that it be zoned Office. You would then
have one logical area together, and consistent.
I would point out one practical thing, Mr.
Swenson lived her for a long time -- he got the
property from his grandmother -- as you may know
the airport take off path, they come down here
[INDICATING], swing over here [INDICATING], and we
know about Quiet Acres -- do you wish further prob-
lems there? It really makes sense to have it as
Office. And, I submit to you, if you look at the
traffic patterns, it makes sense to have it zoned
that Airport Industrial.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Otto Feilen?
MR. FEILEN: I want to talk on behalf of my
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <120>
partner who can not be here, for one parcel, and
that's 6.5 acres on Route 9-D, between Chelsea
Ridge and Montclair, where Old State Road is a
triangle section there. The present zoning for the
property is eight foot business, and it is proposed
for Conservation commercial.
Before I ask questions on it, about the land
use, if you look at the land use map, Conservation
commercial portion of the land use, is totally
different from what's proposed for zoning. And, I
would like, while I submitted letters to the Board,
I want to enter new information that 6.5 acres is
without seeing the land use map. And, as a matter
of fact, a pleasing comment, I see that the
corridor there is something that you intend to
develop, and it's very busy there, and you even put
in Neighborhood Business, and new additions up the
road. On the other hand, as I look at the land
use, that is where it should be conservation
business. So, I am confused with the relation-
ships. I am definitely confused.
I would like to offer -- there's tremendous
history with the property. It's had a shopping
mall approval, and the letters and maps I will
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <121>
offer to Mr. Levinson, tomorrow, I'll not take the
time of the Board now, but there is approval for a
shopping center, and you know that developer is
making a hole and the Town sees needs for develop-
ments there. It does not seem like it's the right
time to come in with new zoning. It actually looks
the same, but you're making it business that is in
effect not going there.
So, I ask you look at it as maintaining that
parcel as Neighborhood Business, and continue it as
such.
There's another parcel, I own it a lone, which
is 4.2 acres, which is across from Chelsea Ridge,
coming out on Route 9-D, and is opposite the Neigh-
borhood Business, and also has zoning presently for
Office Research 1 -acre across the road. That abuts
the Central Hudson power line property, and behind
that is the storage of unlicensed vehicles. I am
basically trying to do something to develop that
land with buildings consistent with R-20, and is
extremely difficult. I'm thinking to ask that per-
haps you consider that for your current office zon-
ing because two-thirds of the property, if you
really look at it, is totally surrounded by
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <122>
business enterprises of one type or another. Maybe
something can be done. One thing is, it has to be
a partnership between the land owner, and the Town,
to get something in there that is right, and not
haphazard. I've waited years to get something in
there, and I need help.
Now, there's another parcel down there which
abuts the Stonykill property, and it's an 11 acre
parcel. I comment in my letter that I've written,
that you should give some thought to the natural
boundaries on the parcels there. There's a trem-
endous amount of wetlands there, and to put it into
R-80 zone, and looking for multiple -family or manu-
facturing -- you've fifty acres there, if you take
the total that's undeveloped, or what's used -- if
you were to use it for business or storage -- if
you were to consider that for some type of business
-- I've written down Neighborhood Business, but
that's not proper either, but some type of business
maybe something can be developed for that particu-
lar parcel. There's a tremendous amount of acreage
and natural boundaries, what with the power lines,
and Stonykill, maybe something other than R-80
could develop it. But, R-80 will take it for --
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <123>
Another thought coming to mind is that you are
going through assessments, or zoning, you're going
through an assessment, and there's been a substan-
tial increase, I believe, in the number of tax
dollars paid by all. It seems that there's a give
and take in the proposed zoning increases and
usages going down. I don't understand the
relationship between assessments going to take
place, because of the property decreases. What
impact is there on the Town? Is this going to be
able to increase assessments totally for the taxing
Town, or will it decrease assessing. [SIC] Is
there a study on it? I've seen no information on
it at all.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: C. Olivieri?
MRS. OLIVIERI: I own a piece of property on
Old Hopewell Road, and the lady from the Chamber of
Commerce expressed what I wanted you to do, which
is to make sure that this be made to conform with
COP. And, the whole idea is wrong. It's not COP,
it's SC -- Shopping Center, and I should be zoned,
with my five and a half acres, here [INDICATING] to
conform with it, so I can benefit from all the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <124>
commercial business around.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Klein want the same
zoning, here. And, I am right here [INDICATING]
south of all of it, right near 7 -Eleven and the
Rent -All. And, if Klein gets zoning, I would like
zoning. [SIC]
[INTERRUPTED BY APPLAUSE.]
I don't want to be left there with my house
and all this around me. That's not fair. I have
enough noise from the Rent -All, and everything
else. So, I want to say that this is not right.
Alpine, who has already submitted an appli-
cation that you have to consider because this is
changing it. They have submitted a proposal, and
if they get COP, it means nothing because that's
not Conservation Office Park, it's Shopping Center
there. [SIC]
I prefer it not be there. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Peter McGinnis?
Mr. McGINNIS: I'm an attorney representing
Andrew J. King, who has property on Route 376.
I've given a copy of my letter to the Members
of the Board. I would like to point out a couple
of things. Our parcel is up here [INDICATING] that
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <125>
I'm talking about. Several years ago the
designations changed. It's no longer a Wetland
designated parcel. The problem what we have does
not show up on the map.
Presently, out land is zoned R-40 and you are
keeping it at R-40 under the new proposal. But,
the problem is the adjacent parcel is being changed
from R-40 to COP, and why that presents a problem
is that that is the only way that parcel has
ingress and egress to Route 376, which is over a
right of way, which is on our lands. So, that is a
problem of greatly increased traffic when it is
developed, if it's Conservation Office Park, next
to a residential parcel.
What we're suggesting is that you either
change our parcel to a Conservation Office Park
designation, so it's the same as this one, next to
it [INDICATING], or change the one next to it back
to R-40, so they will be consistent with each
other.
And, the land in back, also, is proposed to be
COP, which also has the capability of feeding into
Route 376 along the right of way. And, if there is
a tremendous increase in traffic on the road, it's
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <126>
totally infeasible, impossible, to develop that ten
acre parcel of land into R-40, residential. I ask
you to consider that piece of land adjacent to ours
if developed COP would greatly adversely effect the
use of our land. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Timothy Cronin?
MR. CRONIN: I represent Kettle Associates, a
developer from Westchester which has a parcel of
land on South Fowlerhouse Road and Route 9.
Joel Cantor spoke before about this land being
zoned Commercial, and to the south it's zoned Comm-
ercial.
We planned to build a commercial use for our
own use, an office building, and we anticipate
doing that. We understand that you plan to zone it
half-acre. And, if we had commercial use, there
would be developed less sewage for the area. We
would have to have a septic system for commercial
use. And, we would not create additional traffic
flow into Route 9, as opposed to residential
traffic flow.
We've written previously indicating that we
would like to be zoned HB, commercial. That's
about it. Thank you.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <127>
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Dick Rosenberg?
MR. ROSENBERG: The funny thing in this Town
is that everything happens backwards. I am sur-
prised that a state that has strict environmental
laws, like this one, and we don't have an EIS.
It's clearly a Type I action. I call upon the Mem-
bers of the Town Board positively to deck this and
that we have a Public Hearing and mandate that
there will be a Public Hearing after there has been
a full DEIS, so that everybody in all of the
environmental issues are articulated, and everybody
has an opportunity to comment.
I resent the fact that we have a Public Hear-
ing now, and short circuit the right to be heard
after all of the cards are on the table. This
clearly is a Type I action, and must be, positively
decked. What you've done here is systematically
denied the public's right to be heard on the
matter. DEIS must, by the very nature if the
public refers to -- also what must be addressed is
the tax implications. You're tampering with the
financial basics, financial structure of the Town,
and you're not smart enough to do it, I submit,
Mrs. Paino.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <128>
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Please confine your
comments strictly to the planned zoning changes,
and without the personal comments.
MR. ROSENBERG: I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Mr. Rosenberg, everybody is
here to hear comments relative to the planning and
zoning --
MR. ROSENBERG: That's what I am speaking to.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: No, your comments have not
been -- [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
HEAR.]
MR. ROSENBERG: no room for anybody to
build, and that represents your personal district's
antagonism to the partners, and thirty percent of
the population in the Town currently live in multi-
family housing, and what you've done here is
systematically excluded thirty percent of the
residents of the Town.
This plan is absolutely ludicrous, if you take
every location where there is multi-family zoning,
by the very nature of it, there must be adequate
facilities to serve the developments, such as
water, sewer, and traffic -- [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE
MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR.] -- and must exist as
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <129>
ongoing basis, otherwise the County Health
Department will shut them up. And, when your
Planner gets up and says that the areas of the Town
where we have to have R-80 because of lack of
facilities, that is ludicrous.
The other problem I have with the plan reeks
of spot zoning -- [APPLAUSE FROM THE AUDIENCE MADE
IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR.] -- and I listened for two
hours worth of jibberish here -- [NOISE FROM THE
AUDIENCE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR.] -- with
abundant references to day care facilities, and
flea markets, and designed to be built -- the main
issue is that the plan is lousy.
On the other hand it rates a ten on a level of
boredom, there's no question about that.
The proposed ordinance is nothing more than
political pay-offs to friends of Paino and Reis, at
a cost of tens of thousands of dollars.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Mr. Rosenberg, we're here
this evening for a Public Hearing relative to plan-
ning and zoning. You are now out of order. No out
of order comments should be made.
MR. ROSENBERG: Political corruption is
forbidden --
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <130> 1
i
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Would you kindly
--
MR. ROSENBERG: No, Mrs. Paino, I think every-
body here has the right to know.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Mr. Rosenberg, you are here
to discuss planning and zoning, and your comments
are now out of order, unless you are discussing
planning and zoning, your comments are out of
order.
MR. ROSENBERG: There are five Members of the
Board here, if you wish to take a vote if I'm out
of
SUPERVISOR PAINO: You are out of order!
MR. ROSENBERG: That's your opinion, ma'am.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: We'll move on to the next
speaker, unless you will confine yourself --
MR. ROSENBERG: I will continue if you will
stop interrupting, and afford me --
SUPERVISOR PAINO: I am Chairing this Meeting,
and in the interests of all here, making comments
relative to the zoning ordinance that we are pro-
posing this evening, if you will restrict your
comments to them --
MR. ROSENBERG: I submit that this plan is a
waste of time and effort of the citizens. If the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <131>
Planning Board truly believed that they were here
to accomplish a worthwhile purpose, that is not the
case, I submit.
Even the Dutchess County Planning Department,
who have made a considerable consulting fee to
guide the Town, in good conscience is coming out
and voting against the plan, and they neglected to
tell everybody here, that because of it, it will
require a four to one vote to carry it.
In good conscience, this plan is nothing more,
it's a warped, misguided scheme, and nothing more
than a desperate tool to pay off political favors.
If you wish to build a shopping center in the
middle of environmentally sensitive areas, there's
no problem just make a few long distance phone
calls to New England, you cut a deal, and you can
count on Irene and David --
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Again, Mr. Rosenberg, you
are out of order.
MR. ROSENBERG: And, the story goes on --
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Mr. Rosenberg, you are out
of order.
MR. ROSENBERG: -- and I call upon you and the
Board Members to do the right, honorable thing, and
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <132>
vote Miss Paino's political payroll plan into the
trash basket where it belongs, and come election
time the voters will send --
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Mr. Rosenberg, you are out
of order, and the Court Reporter has signalled that
he's out of paper, so we will declare a recess for
a few moments.
MR. ROSENBERG: You're preventing me from
finishing?
SUPERVISOR PAINO: No, the Reporter is running
out of paper, and needs a break.
[RECESS DECLARED AT 9:00 P.M.]
[PUBLIC MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:10 P.M.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: This Meeting is called back
to order. The next speaker is Barbara Gutzler.
MS. GUTZLER: Since it's late, I had several
things I wanted to comment on, but I will cut it
down. My primary concern is zoning on Conservation
Office Park. It seems to me that they've been put
in places that don't seem to be logical, you know,
around high density areas of R-20, where we live.
And, in reading the Zoning Regulations, I find that
there's Special Use Permits available that can
theoretically allow zoning like a laboratory or
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <133>
research facility, or engineering or transmission
tower to be built. And, I live in Angel Brook
Estates, and theoretically I can find a trans-
mission tower there, with a Special Use Permit.
And, Alpine withdraws its application for a
shopping center, and again, with Special Use Permit
we can possibly find something like research
facilities or laboratories right there on Route 9,
around critical areas. I caution the Boards and
the Planners to keep that in mind.
Remember when we looked at Fairchild's site a
few years ago? The people suspected, and I don't
recall much, but the people suspected that there's
toxic wastes discharged. And, during the break I
spoke to another member of the Zoning Board, and I
realize that the ground can not absorb a lot of
discharge, so I am hesitant about seeing so much
Conservation Office Park in the high density areas.
We have enough problems now, with ground water
contamination, and possibly be leaning to greater
problems if we allow COP's to be placed where they
are now, in these areas.
My only other caution to the Board is with
reference to spot zoning, and I am giving you
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <134>
credit to know about spot zoning. I don't think
anybody would intentionally do what they call spot
zoning, but looking at the proposed map, and the
proposed changes, I wonder if a long way down the
road someone may bring a law suit against the Town
saying that you spot zoned for favors, or -- even
unintentionally rezoned the land to Highway
Business, when it was Residential.
I don't recall the people who spoke, but in
listening, they talked about losing value of land,
and that they will have to be compensated. Perhaps
you are opening the door to law suits, and endang-
ering the Town. I caution you, when preparing the
final version, to keep it in mind.
One other thing, is we have seven conditions
set forth by the Dutchess County Planning Depart-
ment, and I know that the letter was received
within the last day or so, or even today, but I
think that if you were in constant contact with
them, you should have been aware of the seven
conditions that the County Planning Department set
forth. And, I don't know if you're going to be
able to meet the conditions by any particular dead-
line that you've set for yourselves, but if you
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <135>
don't, the Department will turn you down, and you
will need a super majority of four out of five -- I
am surprised and appalled that conditions like this
are still outstanding when you spend so much time
working on it.
I have to say that I will commend them for the
work done. I know you worked hard, and put a lot
of time into it. And, bear in mind the comments
that we've made, so we can have ourselves a better
Town to live in, because I intend to stay in this
Town for sometime, but I'm not sure that I am happy
here.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Douglas Schner?
MR. SCHNER: Douglas Schner, representing
Pizzagalli Development on Myers Corners Road. In
reading over the new ordinance I find that a COP
district is not dissimilar to an OR -10A District
with the exception of a Special Use Permit and,
specifically under number two, Scientific Research,
and Engineering Design, Laboratory, existing facil-
ities, Research Development is a facility that
always has been what you're asking for here through
Special Use Permits. And, I think that the prior
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <136>
comments about office space in Dutchess County is
somewhat excessive. What you're doing here is
putting a burden on the COP District in not allow-
ing Scientific Research Development. In many,
many, cases, it's a -- [NOISE FROM THE AUDIENCE
MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR.] -- industry, and
should not be a problem in COP Districts.
And, I heard Holly say earlier that that
district allows Office Research, however you have
to go through the step to get the Special Use
Permit.
I also heard comments earlier about a change
in set backs that have not been made public tonight
and I would like to know if they are more or less
restrictive.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Less restrictive.
MR. SCHNER: Okay. And, I disagree with you
on the use of Research Development.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Harold Mangold?
MR. MANGOLD: Thank you. I represent James
Klein and David Alexander, and you have my letter,
and I would like to state -- rather ask, that you
give Mrs. Olivieri anything she wants. I would
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <137>
also like to commend you all for the hard work and
effort put into this.
They, Alexander and Klein, own a lot of
property, as you are aware, and they have two
problems. The first one being the fifteen acre
parcel on Route 9, across from Greer Toyota, which
land has been in familiar case, COP zone. If you
are having a COP, exclusive office park usage, it's
very expensive office space and it's hard to tell
when you have to drive through multifaceted
highways and business zones at this time. If it's
entirely Highway Business, you will have a better
use, and will be more in keeping with what's going
on in the area, including whatever Mrs. Olivieri
wishes to do.
MRS. OLIVIERI: [INTERRUPTING] I'll sell it
to Klein.
MR. MANGOLD: Let the record reflect that Mr.
Klein is not here tonight, and it's good for all of
you, too.
And, I note the New Hackensack Road property
that Mr. Klein has, which is 1.5 acres, which has
existing buildings and eighteen multiple dwellings,
zoned R-20, which is retention of a non -conforming
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <138>
use, and I ask at this time that it be zoned an
appropriate multiple dwelling zone.
Again, I commend you all, and thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Anthony Monteleone?
MR. MONTELEONE: Thank you. I represent Mr.
Hartman who owns 188 acres on Route 376, in the
area of Myers Corners Road, and I wrote a letter on
his behalf April 10th, 1989, which I am sure you
have reviewed. We went over it with the Planning
Board recently as well, so I only have a few
comments to make.
One was made previously, and that is have you
really considered the economic impact of the zoning
you are attempting to create under the Ordinance?
You are putting restrictions in the Ordinance
whereby properties are restricted in development
potential based upon the amount of services that
can be provided to the properties -- public water
and public sewer, and the R-40 and R-60, R-80, and
so on -- and in other places in your regulations
you state that one of your authorities has the
determinative right to establish whether or not the
property owner can put in central water or sewer,
so you're really not giving the owner of the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <139>
property the potential development that you are
saying, because you are retaining a discretionary
right within a Board. And, that Board may not have
the discretionary right, according to the law.
And, not only economic impact, but the restrictions
you are placing within it.
The only other alternatives for the Town is to
say that you will put in sewer and water throughout
the district where we're restricting development,
and where we're saying you put in a dwelling unit
on 40,000 square feet, and we'll give you water and
sewer to do it. That's economically unviable.
Concerning the building envelope on R-40, R-60
and R-80, and possibly in COP, you've put in rear
yard, side yard restrictions, and the Planning
Board made a recommendation to change that. But,
you created envelopes there that are just totally
unworkable, so unworkable that you've confiscated
many properties within the Town.
The COP zoning in and of itself, because of
the various areas that you've placed it, and
placing the COP wherever the Town determines the
environmental or other impact where we don't like
the land, we'll put in COP. I don't know if that's
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <140>
a good approach.
You certainly have to consider that a property
owner has a right to development of his property in
a reasonable manner. Some property owners don't
always recognize the Town's right to permit orderly
development, but working together, I think a
property owner and municipality, being cooperative
and reasonable with the Zoning Ordinance, that it
would be workable, and can make the Town of
Wappinger a better town, not only to live in, and
also for developers to develop and make the Town a
better place to live, and yet lower taxes, and all
of the other benefits that people look for when
they move to a town like the Town of Wappinger.
With those comments, and my letter of April
10th, 1989, I request that the Board serious take
some of the comments into consideration and review
them. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Jack Railing?
MR. RAILING: Preliminary comments that I
have are that I've noted when Members of the
Committee were noted, that every person on the
Committee was associated in some form or another
with the Town Planning Board, the Town Zoning Board
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <141>
or Town Board. I think that the lack of a local
businessman on the Committee is being see here
tonight. I objected, years ago, and again I object
to the fact that the local business community was
ignored during the entire process.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: If I can clarify that,
first of all, initially we did have representatives
from the local Chamber of Commerce who came to a
few meetings, and they ceased to send representa-
tives.
MR. RAILING: I can, and I did, volunteer my
services, free of charge, to the Town. You were
not Supervisor at that time, and it was rejected.
Secondly, I think there's insufficient infor-
mation here, nor was there time to intelligently
review the reasons for a lot of the changes.
I heard the Town's Attorney indicating that a
draft -- it was an impact -- Type I Impact, and
that draft will be prepared. And, Mr. Rosenberg is
saying that that's not what he heard. Can I get
is there any mandate that there be a Draft Environ-
mental
--
MR. WOOD: Under SEQRA if it's a Type I
action, which this presumably is, then one is
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <142>
necessary. There's a presumption to show we have
to weigh considerations made tonight --
MR. RAILING: It's not mandatory?
MR. WOOD: It's presumed it will have to be
done.
MR. RAILING: I want to clarify it, in my
mind, because it was not clear, whether or not it
is required. And, you know that I have a business
at 186 Route 9, I'm in the practice of engineering
and surveying, and represent several clients in the
Town.
I would like to speak to one point, spoken to
earlier this evening, and I will be specific, and
it relates to spot zoning that's continuously
occurring here. There's a parcel of land owned by
Ray VanDorn, south of Friendly Accura, on the west
side of Route 9. I spoke to him today, and I asked
for his comments. He's not pleased with the fact
that he has presently been zoned HB, and that he's
proposed to be zoned R-20 or R-20/40. He objects.
And, we use that as an example of the objections to
a lot of commercial rezoning to residential that is
occurring throughout the Town, specifically on the
Ray VanDorn -- Mitsubishi site -- because
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <143>
application for ten months has been pending now,
which I don't know why the Growth Management
Committee has not acted upon. They're very near
the final stage of the proposal, and except for
three or four parcels, other than Green Fly Swamp,
and the existing residential parcels, they are all
zoned non-residential, or commercial in some form.
Why they were selected, we're not sure. One is Ray
VanDorn's parcel.
COUNCILMAN FARINA: Where's that located?
MR. RAILING: Just north of Fowlerhouse Road.
COUNCILMAN FARINA: Thank you.
MR. RAILING: Third point relative to sub-
division of commercial development was incorporated
in the approval, and at that time the Town Planning
Board was aware that it was to be commercial, and
why this particular parcel is selectively
eliminated from the commercial zone is unknown to
us at this time. Again, there's no demonstrated
reason or documentation for rezoning. And, we
await any scoping sessions which may occur as a
result of the positive declaration on this.
We also ask what compensation will be offered
to the land owners for their loss of commercial use
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <144>
of their property, and we ask what will be offered
to the tax payers of the Town for their loss of
revenue of conversion of the parcel to residential.
As I said before, and I will say it again, the
commercial parcel would have a reduction of demand
in areas of water -sewer, and also eliminate the
need for another small Town road off Route 9,
serving the three or four parcels -- that's a seven
acre parcel, not one to be used -- designed as a
cluster, or Section 281 Development.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Pete Elder?
MR. ELDER: [MR. ELDER SPOKE OFF THE RECORD.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Robert Ferris?
MR. FERRIS: I'm here to speak for Mildred
Diddell. Her property is located on Route 376 in
this area [INDICATING] along a narrow piece,
approximately 400 feet wide, and fronted on the
front by Route 376, and fronted on the back by the
new County Route 11, I think it's called, it's now
the railroad. That's two major highways, and 400
foot parcel of land in between that. You now have
it zoned Industrial, and it's proposed to be zoned
Residential. I ask you to take another look at it.
I doubt if anybody would want to have a residence
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <145>
between two major highways like this.
Secondly, you have a small portion of land
scheduled to be zoned the infamous COP. We ask you
to keep a consistency of zoning within an entire
parcel. Keep one parcel within one zone, instead
of splitting it into two uses.
COUNCILWOMAN SMITH: Okay. We understand
that.
MR. FERRIS: And, the point on the COP is that
her land does not meet the requirements as you set
them forth of COP. It's already a pre-existing
nonconformance use and does not meet your require-
ments. It does not even have the 500 foot depth
that you require COP to have. She's owned it now
it's eight generations. We would like to see
you give her more consideration on it.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Mr. Bill Halpin?
MR. HALPIN: Yes. I own two parcels of land,
and one is Highway Business 1-A and the other is
R-20 right now. And, as I understand it, when and
if it's rezoned R-20/40, that's half -acre lots,
they are worth nothing to me. I'm paying $900 a
year taxes for vacant half -acre lots. If that's to
be proposed, and the proposal went through, I would
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <146>
want to request that the adjoining properties have
half -acre land, added on to my existing one, into
something commercial. Otherwise the land is use-
less. I can not use it for anything. It's Old
Route 9 and Curry Road, behind the Greer property.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Henry Semp?
[NO VERBAL RESPONSE.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Apparently he does not want
to speak. But, he has given the Town Board a
statement.
Jeff Relyea?
MR. RELYEA: I'm speaking for myself and my
wife. We're on Middlebush Road, and we've had the
house on the market now for six months, and we're
asking that it be rezoned for Commercial, the
reason being is that everybody who is looking at
the house likes it, it's on the market reasonably
priced, but once they go outside in the yard, and
see the traffic on Route 9-D and Middlebush is
horrendous, no matter what time of day. We've
asked that you reconsider that as Commercial.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Mike Hirkala?
MR. HIRKALA: I don't have property to make a
lot of money, or to lose a lot of money if you so
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <147>
something with it. But, I have concerns. One you
were advised about before, which is recreation use
in residential areas. As the present Zoning Ordin-
ance is written, in the proposal, anybody can set
up any commercial recreational business in a resi-
dential area with the Town Board's Special Use
Permit. But, the problem is you can not tell them
they can not have it as a matter of right. The
only thing to control is that he or she -- what
impact and mitigating circumstances forces -- you
can not step 'em. What I'm saying, or trying to
say, is if you wish something like a skating rink
or bowling alley, that is something that possibly
could happen, if that's allowed. It's a broad
term. Recreation uses should be limited to small
types of recreation. The wording on 426 is very
vague reading. That way there's no way anybody can
be able to say what the law is or does not allow,
and that will give somebody a hard time for a
Special Use Permit before the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
And, really, the requirement for churches in
residential areas, should be, if not by Special Use
Permit, by some form of permit, to mitigate the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <148>
parking and highway traffic problems. And, you're
allowing ten acres for private schools, and yet
churches with schools are permitted two acres?
That can be a problem. They should be closer
together.
Another problem is Highway Business
designation allows too much, and it should be more
restrictive. And, complaint heard are you don't
have Manufacturing, but you do have Highway
Business which allows commercial laundries, and
that type of thing. We have no sewer or water on
Route 9, but the uses are on Route 9 and are
allowed and it can create problems with the ground
water, and with the Health Department, even if it
is approved. In the long term, you're going to
have problems. It should be a little more
restrictive.
And, I disagree with the attempts to make a
Town Center on All Angels Hill Road and Myers
Corners Road. And, to go on further, I think we
have major road problems in this Town. And, the
Town, County and State have said they are not doing
a hell of a lot for us. The County is considering
facing the problems by recreating the new road. We
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <149>
can not get the developments to do it.
And, the comments by the County, in their
recommendations for what they recommend the plan
should be, more specifically, high density -- that
is scaring the hell out of me, because I see coming
is building height restrictions of 35 feet, and
having multistory buildings. I suspect that the
County Planning Department has taken their wish
list of creating high density areas in the core
area, with the green areas outside three-quarters
of the County, and eliminate our green areas. I am
not happy with the way that was written. It seems
to me they are dictating their wish of high density
on our Town. But, he's talking six to ten per
acre, and that is extremely high. And, that's the
County Planning Department, and they had a Public
Hearing, and application before the Planning Board
recently -- Myers Corners Road, it was stated DPW
had no plans to do anything on the road. What are
we doing? Packing people in the Town without
services, and making the Town pay for services that
the people say we should have for them? It's
ridiculous. If we're going to high density in the
Town, the first thing to be done is sit down and
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <150>
recreate long-term planning, and not just
reactivate the plan, but sitting down and have the
complete road work mapped out before the develop-
ment comes in. I want the builders to come in
knowing that he has a road to build. That's what I
am talking about. It's unconscionable that the
County Planning Department should foist on the Town
that development that the Town does not want.
[INTERRUPTED BY APPLAUSE FROM THE PEOPLE.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: The next two individuals,
Mike Scriver and L. E. Maynard, I understand have
chosen not to speak. And, the next individual on
the sign up sheet is R. Humeston, Sr.
MR. HUMESTON: Yes. I am relating tonight to
the new development of PUD area adjacent to the
Pizzagalli property on Myers Corners Road. Under
the new Ordinance you are stating that there must
be seventy-five contiguous acres presently. Under
this plan, here, where you have my property, which
is thirty-four acres, and the remaining property
owned by another owner, the way I read and under-
stand the proposal, is ownership can be separate
but the owners must file a single contiguous parcel
prior to application, and jointly submitted,
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <151>
providing you can get both parties to agree. If I
disagree, or the other party does, there's nothing.
First of all, I think seventy-five contiguous
acres is very large. And, as you are well aware
IBM's facility started by Pizzagalli started off
with less than that. It started off with fourteen
to fifteen acres. I would like to see the seventy-
five acres reduced to something more like thirty
acres, which is, I think, better planning sense.
And, the way the application is made, the way
I read it for this particular PUD and everything,
the application has to be made to the Town Board
for rezoning, and from what zoning I'm not sure,
and then the Planning Board reports back to the
Town Board, and the Town Board holds a Public Hear-
ing, and the Planning Board holds a Public Hearing
and it's reviewed by all local celebrities and the
Town Engineer, and it's now a few more years down
the line. I'm concerned that suppose Pizzagalli
decides hey want to expand their IBM facility. I
believe, under this proposal, they can not purchase
and use this for their research facility.
Thirdly, my portion of the property consists
of thirty-five acres, and the other owner has
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <152>
thirty-four acres. He's in the sewer district, and
the other portion of the property is not in the
sewer district. I'm wondering how you can combine
land to one use without a sewer district, or with
two-thirds of the parcel in it.
I think this action precludes getting a fair
market value for the highest and best use of the
land. I think that this Ordinance as proposed is
taking away my land without due compensation.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Joe Incoronato?
MR. INCORONATO: This is the scope of the plan
developed over the course of a couple or three
years. This goes back to the early '70's, and the
basis for the existing Zoning Ordinance enacted in
'79, and updated in 1980, and produced an 849 page
document, a comprehensive study. I would like to
know from the planners, or anybody on the Committee
is what Town Development Plan is the source for
this proposed zoning?
MS. THOMAS: This is the Comprehensive Plan
that was prepared through the work of the Growth
Management Committee, which is the starting point
for the Zoning Map that you see here now. And, the
plans contain two background studies: The plan
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <153>
itself, and the land use plan that goes with it.
The land use plan is on the small wall, back there
[INDICATING], and when that was completed, the
zoning process began, and preparation of the zoning
maps.
MR. INCORONATO: Page twenty-three of this,
[NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR] --
Section 263 of the Town Law, Zoning Enabling
Legislation of the State shall be made in
accordance with the comprehensive plan, [NOISE FROM
AUDIENCE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR] -- which
you've done, and design to lessen congestion in the
streets, making them safe from fire, flood, panic,
and other dangers, [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR] -- including health, and to
provide adequate light and air and prevent
overcrowding of land, and [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE
IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR] --to provide a new
concentration of population, and to facilitate
provisional transportation of sewer and water,
parks and other public requirements.
What has this plan done to reduce congestion,
and control population in the Town? Isn't that to
be the state purpose of zoning within municipal -
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <154>
ities, according to the law? What has been done to
lesson congestion in the streets, etcetera? What
has been done to prevent overcrowding of the land?
I'll tell you. I looked at the old plan from
the 1960's, the map on the left, and looking at it,
along Route 9 from Spring Road down to the Fishkill
line, it was all HB -2, except for three or four
acres, just south of Hopewell Road, by the gas
station on the east side of Route 9. That's
roughly three out of a couple of hundred acres, or
more, along Route 9. Virtually all of Route 9 was
zoned 22 -acre Commercial. I now see that it's
brought down to
length of Route
cuts.
one -acre minimum along the entire
9, doubling the number of curb -
Giving you one little example of what happens
when you put businesses where they don't belong,
and that's what's put on Osborne Hill, by Members
of this Board -- Lloyd Lumber, is three -acres
Commercial, two -acres of residential to the rear,
west of the property this Board rezoned it to
Commercial and now they've put a traffic light on
Smithtown Road, because traffic is impossible at
the intersection of Osborne Hill Road and Route 9.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <155>
Another business creating traffic problems,
requiring a light on Route 9 [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE
MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR] -- and you know what it
looks like between here and Poughkeepsie? It's
going to look like Yonkers. That's all we're
developing.
I have strange reservations that this is a
damaging aspect of the Ordinance as proposed. What
you are doing to Route 9 is a multiplicity of, and
proliferation of commercial, small, lots attacking
Route 9.
Now, there's a question on the proposed sewer
system. Do you see where the dark line on the
right hand map [INDICATING] is? That's the
proposed sewer system. When we talk about R-40 and
R-20, and R-80, etcetera -- let me understand this,
if I have a utility or [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR] which is one and a half
acres, either sewer or water, does that say because
all of the major property within the sewer system,
that that is construed as central sewer in that
black area? [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR.]
MS. THOMAS: Land development in that area
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <156>
should not be permitted unless it's either on a
central system, complying with the Town Plan, or
designed to hook into a central system. That's the
intent.
MR. INCORONATO: That's the intent of the
service area, and the Town Engineer's studying the
district?
And, here's the spot zoning, which was R-40,
which [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
HEAR] -- behind my property on Osborne Hill --
Ketchamtown, and now suddenly R-20/40, all on the
basis of someone projecting this? When do you
think we'll get to the wet dream here, that's it's
going to come down to the Fishkill line? When do
you think we're going to get central sewage? And,
that's spot zoned. How many decades do you think
it will be before it's sewered, if ever? Can you
answer that? Will that be before the British leave
Hong Kong? Before Star Trek returns to Planet
Earth?
MS. THOMAS: [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR.]
MR. INCORONATO: The point I'm trying to make
is you have arbitrarily allowed spot zoning on the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <157>
basis of something that was projected, on something
that was imaginative. We've not agreed to Tri -Muni
yet. That's feasible. But, that's still in
negotiations. And, you're allowing a higher
density use to be [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR] -- and yet you're allowing
someone to get more housing in here on the basis of
a twenty-year projection. That's outrageous, and
it's not realistic, and it's not fair to the
people. This is something that's been going on in
the Town for years, and perpetuated again under the
guise of progress. Where's your recreation? It is
conspicuous by its absence. This thing that's
fifteen years old, they did it then. You didn't
have it. You show nothing here. And, in 1974 you
said that the Town had 132 acres of recreation
property, and you're short forty-four acres then,
and your still short. But, it's more intense
because there's twice as many people. How do you
accommodate that?
And, you've short-shrifted the west side of
the Route 9. You have no recreation there. The
only alleged recreation that you have there is at
Castle Point. And, what do you have at that area?
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <158>
You have a town dump. They've been dumping there
for fifteen years, and finally closed it a year
ago. Members of the Wappinger Conservation
Association applied for funding from money you got
from the 3345 kilovolt line, $250,000 [NOISE FROM
AUDIENCE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR] --to do
engineering studies, to determine what water
quality was there. You have hazardous wastes
there.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Please confine your
remarks, Mr. Incoronato, to the --
MR. INCORONATO: But, it does have to do with
zoning. We have no recreation on the west side,
and you have not made a determination for the
security of the people. There's no welfare -list
people, it's a failure of your Zoning Ordinance.
[NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR]
and, if you look at the Dorothy Heights area,
where persons claim they live there, and their
neighbors saying they don't live there, and that
the real estate business is flourishing there, and
we have a lot being brought before the Zoning Board
of Appeals and you have one use or another. And,
the professionals with the intent of ultimately
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <159>
bringing their offices in their homes, and that's
unreasonable and unfair to the rest of the commun-
ity. If you buy in a residential zone, it should
remain residential. [NOISE FROM AUDIENCE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR.]
After spending more than three years to come
up with this half-baked proposal, where the
Dutchess County Planning Department who served as
your consultant have major objections to what you
are proposing this evening, after three years --
can only say that you're doing it bass-ackwards.
You should have the DEIS, the DEC can make their
counter -proposals, and then you have another Public
Hearing because of material changes, which we will
not get to for another two or three months -- this
is just bad, shoddy work.
[APPLAUSE FROM THE AUDIENCE.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: John Beale?
[NO RESPONSE.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: The last person on the
list is I. Stone.
[NO RESPONSE.]
SUPERVISOR PAINO: Anybody who wishes to sub-
mit comments in writing will be accepted at the
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR 1 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <160>
Town Clerk's Office, up until 4:00 p.m. next Friday
which is May 19th.
Thank you all for attending this evening, and
I move to adjourn this Public Hearing.
COUNCILWOMAN SMITH: Second.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: All in favor?
THE COURT CLERK: Unanimously in favor, Mrs.
Paino.
SUPERVISOR PAINO: This meeting is adjourned.
[PUBLIC HEARING CONCLUDED AT 10:00 P.M.]
-oo0oo-
CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT.
DATED: June 20th, 1989.
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR
PHILIP E. STILLERMAN, RPR I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER <161>
Nw.