1980-11-03 SPMi
81
A Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger was
held on November 3, 1980 at Town Justice Court, Town of Wappinger,
Wappingers Falls, New York.
Notice of this meeting was sent to all Board Members on October
31, 1980, calling said meeting for November 3, 1980 at 7:45 P.M.
Notice was sent to the three newspapers and four radio stations
and also posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board.
Supervisor Diehl opened the meeting at 7:48 P.M.
Present:
Louis Diehl, Supervisor
Nicholas Johnson, Councilman
Bernice Mills, Councilwoman
Janet Reilly, Councilwoman
Frank Versace, Councilman
Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk
Mr. Diehl explained that the purpose of this meeting was to
consider action on the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of
the Town of Wappinger, Section 461.91, Sign Regulations in Shopping
Center Districts, the Public Hearing having been duly held Oct. 30, 1980.
The following resolution was offered by COUNCILMAN JOHNSON who
moved its adoption:
WHEREAS, an ordinance has been introduced to amend the
comprehensive zoning ordinance of the Town of Wappinger for
purposes of adding thereto the provisions relating to signs
in shopping center districts, and
WHEREAS, the text of the proposed revision to the ordinance
has been referred to the Dutchess County Planning Department in
accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law, Section
239-m, and
WHEREAS, the Dutchess County Department of Planning by
letter dated October 30th, 1980 has recommended disapproval
of such amendment for the reasons stated therein, and
WHEREAS, the provisions of General Municipal Law Section
239-m require an expression of reasons for approval of the
revisions to a zoning ordinance under such circumstances,
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that the amendment to the zoning
ordinance be adopted for the following reasons:
1. The existing zoning ordinance lacks any provisions
for signs which are associated and necessary with shopping
center districts; the proposed amendment will fill that need.
2. Contrary to the assertions of the Dutchess County
Planning Department, only a minimum area of Route 9 within
the town will be affected given the small size of the shopping
center district on said highway within the Town of Wappinger.
82
3. The provisions of the proposed amendment are comparable
to sign regulations affecting shopping center districts in other
municipalities.
4. The review of the proposed amendment by the Dutchess
County Planning Department fails to take into consideration
the provisions of 416.912 which further limit signs to specified
maximum dimensions and also overlook limitations provided in
the ordinance as to the maximum sizeof signs, the same correlated
to building frontage.
5. Sufficient mechanisms exist to site plan review and
provisions within the proposed amended zoning ordinance to control
locations of signs, particularly free standing signs, as the same
will be subject to the jurisdiction and review of the Planning
Board of the Town of.Wappinger.
6. The comments of the Dutchess County Planning Department
fail to take into consideration those circumstances in which a
shopping center is located on two intersecting streets and has
means of access and egress from both of said streets; under such
circumstances, it is necessary that identification signs be on
more than one side of the building.
Seconded by: Councilwoman Reilly
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
Resolution Duly Adopted
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER
SECTION 461.91, SIGN REGULATIONS
IN SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICTS
The following Ordinance was offered by COUNCILMAN JOHNSON, who
moved its adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDAINED by the Town Board of the Town
of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, pursuant to the
authority conferred by the Laws of the State of New York,
as follows:
SECTION 1. The Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance adopted
March 10, 1980, and amended from time to time is further amended
as follows:
416.9 Sign Regulations in Shopping CeXtter Districts
in shopping center districts the following signs are hereby
authorized:
416.91 Not more than one (1) sign, per each retail or
business outlet, affixed and parallel to the outer wall of
the structure within which the retail or business outlet is
situated, facing upon either the principal street giving
access to such structure or upon the parking lot pertinent
to such structure, provided that:
416.911 The aggregate area of each such sign shall not
exceed the following:
416.9111 For retail or business outlets utilizing 5,000
square feet of floor area or less, one (1) square foot for
every 50 square feet of floor area.
416.9112 For retail or business outlets utilizing over
5,000 square feet of floor area, one (1) square foot for every
100 square feet of floor area, not to exceed 500 square feet
total.
416.9113 If the retail or business outlet is contained
within a structure facing two (2) principal streets giving
access to such structure (corner store), two (2) signs shall
be permitted and the total area of signs shall not exceed
150% of the allowable sign area as set forth in paragraphs
416.9111 and 416.9112, however, no sign shall exceed area
permitted in paragraphs 416.9111 and 416.9112.
416.9114 If the retail or business outlet is contained
within a structure facing three (3) principal streets giving
access to such structure, three (3) signs shall be permitted
and the total area of signs shall not exceed 200% of the
allowable sign area as set forth in paragraphs 416.9111 and
416.9112, however, no sign shall exceed area permitted in
paragraphs 416.9111 and 416.9112.
416.9115 If the retail or business outlet is contained
within a structure facing four (4) principal streets giving
access to such structure, four (4) signs shall be permitted
and the total area of signs shall not exceed 250% of the
allowable sign area as set forth in paragraphs 416.9111 and
416.9112, however, no sign shall exceed area permitted in
paragraphs 416.9111 and 416.9112.
416.912 No such sign shall exceed the following height
dimensions:
416.9121 For retail or business outlets having up to
20 linear feet of building frontage facing a principal street
or parking lot, the sign shall not exceed two (2) feet in
height.
416.9122 For retail or business outlets having 20 to
40 linear feet of building frontage facing a principal street
or parking lot, the sign shall not exceed three (3) feet in
height.
416.9123 For retail or business outlets having 40 to 80
linear feet of building frontage facing a principal street or
parking lot, the sign shall not exceed four (4) feet in height.
416.9124 For retail or business outlets having 80 to 160
linear feet of building frontage facing a principal street or
parking lot, the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
416.9125 For retail or business outlets having over 160
linear feet of building frontage facing a principal street or
parking lot, the sign shall not exceed six (6) feet maximum.
416.9126 The length of such sign shall not exceed 80%
Of the linear feet of building frontage occupied by the retail
or business outlet.
416.92 Free Standing Buildings
Each building within a shopping center district separated
on all four (4) sides from the main structure (free standing
building) shall be permitted one (1) free standing sign not
to exceed 40 square feet and, shall not be more than 12 feet
high measured from the ground level, at a location to be
specified by the Planning Board.
83
86
416.93 Indentification Sian
In the Shopping Center District, one (1) free standing
sign identifying the name of the shopping center, not
exceeding forty (40) square feet in area, not ten (10) feet
in any dimension, and, measured from the top of the sign,
no more than twelve (12) feet above ground level, shall
be permitted for each shopping center, at a location to
be specified by the Planning Board.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon adoption, posting and publication as prescribed by
Town Law.
Seconded by: Councilwoman Reilly
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
Resolution Duly Adopted
MRS. REILLY moved to set a Special Meeting on November 17,
1980 at 7:00 P.M. at Town Justice Court, 14-16 Old
Town of Wappinger, Wappingers Falls, New York, for
of considering the adoption of the Federal Revenue
and the Preliminary Budget for the
Seconded by Mrs. Mills
MR. JOHNSON moved to close
Route 9,
the purpose
Sharing Budget
Town of Wappinger for 1981.
Motion
the Special Meeting,
Mrs. Mills and unanimously carried.
The Meeting closed at 7:55 P.M.
Spl. Mtg. 11/3/80
L6
77-2)
Unanimously Carried
seconded by
Elaine H. Snowden
Town Clerk
A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of
Wappinger on November 3, 1980, at the Town Justice Court,
14-16 Old Route 9, Town of Wappinger, Wappingers Falls,
New York, on the Preliminary Budget and the Federal Revenue
Sharing Budget of 1981.
Supervisor Diehl opened the Hearing at 8:06 P.M.
Present:
Louis Diehl, Supervisor
Nicholas Johnson, Councilman
Bernice. Mills, Councilwoman
Janet Reilly, Councilwoman
Frank Versace, Councilman
Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk
Others Present:
Henry Cuatt, Comptroller
The Town Clerk offered for the record the Affidavits of Posting
and Publication duly signed and notarized. (These Affidavits
are attached hereto and made part thereof of the Minutes of this
Hearing).
Mr. Versace wished to state for the record, before opening the
floor to the public, that although the newspapers reported that
the Town Board Members were seeking an increase in salary, he
was not in favor of any part time official receiving a salary -
increase; nor was he in favor of any increases for part time
employees.
Mr. Joseph Incoronato asked about the rate for the Fleetwood
Water District this year and was told it was increasing 10%,
the Benefit Assessment, however, would decrease this year.
LO%L1ihcrease, the Comptroller pointed out, should enable the
district to do the required repairs.
his
Mr. Incoronato then asked
about the capital improvements done on the system this year --
that item was expended from the 1980 budget apd the district
received a grant of $10,OQ0 from the state,therefore a large
portion of this was paid by the grant.
William Horton, Highway Superintendent, referred to his budget
on page 22 and said he had asked for $226,000 for contractual
expenses and was receiving $191,000 after the Board cut it back;
According to those figures and taking rising costs into
considertation, he will actually receive $1,000 more in 1981
than he had in 1980. Last year he received $178,000 plus
$12,000 in Federal Revenue Sharing; this year he was not
receiving Revenue Sharing. He asked that.this $1,000 be
replaced in his budget due to rising cost of materials. On
page 26, he noted that $15,000 had been cut from account DM5130.2
which had been put in the budget for a truck. The vehicle that
this would replace will have to come off the road the first of
the year, and he will have one less truck. On page 28 he noted
that $15,000 had been cut from snow removal and when Mr. Johnson
asked if the unexpended balance would go back into that account
rather than the general fund, he informed them that wouldn't help
him until the following year since it was budget time now and he had
no way of knowing what would be unexpended by the end of this
year.
Mary Schmalz asked if the amount to be raised by taxes for the
Central Wappinger Water Area would affect their present • rate.
This was the figure for the Benefit Assessment which would be
reduced this year. She then questioned the amount of $111,916.00
on Page 48 under contractual expenses for Central Wappinger Water --
what was this amount for. This figure went up from $68,000, and
since it was nearly double, she asked for a breakdown. to
Comptroller then proceeded to list the various items this figure
represented. It was also explained that the budget was separated
differently than it had been and some items had decreased, others
had increase, but it had evened out.
Mr. Incoronato noted on Page 3, under contractual expenses for
Attorney and Engineer, there was a 35% increase. When told that
these firms had not been increased for 12 years, he replied that
when they did additional services not included in their contract,
they balanced out and did very well. Mr. Incoronato then ques-
tioned the figure on traffic control which went from $3,000 to
$9,000, up 75% ---the reason for this was upgrading of traffic
lights and monies would be coming back to reimburse the town for
this expenditure.
Mike Hirkala complained about the time element on completion of the
budget and the public hearing, since he had just picked up the
budget late this afternoon. Next, he stated he was against
elected officials giving themselves raises in an off election
year. Under Comptroller, Personal Services, he noted a rapid
increase from 1979 to 1980 and then it decreased for 1981, also
a decrease in buildings, contractual expenses and a decrease in
independent auditing and accounting. He then commended the Board
on these decreases. He asked why the increase in the Assessor's
budget and was told this reflected the jump in rent. He agreed
with Mr. incoronato on the raises for the attorney and the engineer
taking into consideration the fact that they were paid extra on
certain services, and would like to know the total amount paid
to these firms, something that this Board and past Boards had
never reported. He felt they should consider a full time position
and we could possibly realize some savings since they could be
used for the sewer and water districts also.
Mr. Jensen then interjected that if these people were employed
by the Town on a full time basis, they would need an office,
plus a place for their records, and a staff.
Mrs. Schmalz asked if these salaries came out of the general fund
solely, or did it come out of other areas.
Mr. Hirkala asked about the item "unallocated insurance" and was
told it was for various insurance premiums that could not be
charged to any specific department. He questioned an increase of
$6,000 under Recreation A7110.4 --this was due to rise of costs in
materials used in the maintenance of the parks and gas and oil and
parts for the tractors.
Mrs. Schmalz asked why the raise of $50.00 for the Historian --
this partly covered the cost of a four drawer file cabinet.
Mr. Frank Presti asked about expenses under airport, however this
amount came under transportation which in the Town budget came
under the highway department, contractual expenses, since we had
no town expense for the airport since that was a county operation.
Mr. Hirkala then asked about the $35,000 figure under,interfund
transfer, capital project --this was the building fund which the
town was adding to each year. He then questioned the rise in
Building and Zoning from $32,000 to $39,000 and was told this
was due to the fact that the Building Inspector had asked for a
second part time person for his office. The Board put the money
in the budget but had not decided whether a second person would
be hired. Mr. Hirkala felt if the office was so busy, they should
go back to two positions, Building Inspector and Zoning Adminis-
trator since part time help did not prove to be that efficient.
Mr. Incoronato asked about the rise in budget for the Vandalism
Patrol--in '79 it was 12,000, in '80 it was 15,000, now for '81
it was 19,000, representing an 85% rise in two years. Mr. Diehl
explained that this patrol was now manned by the Sheriff Deputies
with power to make arrests, which brought another question by
Mr. Incoronato---have they made any arrests and does having this
patrol actually benefit the Town?
Mr. Hirkala asked about the amount of $192,000 under interfund
transfers on page 20--this was debt service, principal and interest
on all bonds. He then referred to Federal Revenue Sharing and
felt that if this was stopped, the town would really be in trouble
since they were using it for items that would otherwise be in the
general fund.
Mrs. Schmalz asked why citizens had to pay for ambulance service
since they were paying Sloper Willen out of Federal Revenue Funds,
and she had been told they could not use these funds for parks
because if so, they would have to open them to the general public
rather than just town residents.
Mike Hirkala asked what percentage would the budget be going up--
10.1 in the town and 10.5 in the village, and in rates, 58c per
1,000 in the village and $1.25 per 100 in the town.
There were no other comments.
Mr. Johnson moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mrs.
Mills and carried.
The Hearing closed at 9:20 P.M.
Elaine H. Snowden
Town Clerk
TOWN BOARD: TOWN OF WAPPINGER
DUTCHESS COUNTY: NEW YORK
IN THE MATTER AFFIDAVIT OF
OF POSTING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
FEDERAL RBVENUE SHARING BUDGET
AND PRELIMINARY BUDGET OF THE
TOWN OF BUDGET FOR 1981
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS )
ELAINE H. SNOWDEN, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
That she is the duly elected, qualified and
acting Town Clerk of the Town of Wappinger, County
of Dutchess and State of New York.
That on October 22, 1980, your deponent posted
a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing on
the Federal Revenue Sharing Budget and Preliminary
Budget of the Town of Wappinger for 1981, on the
signboard maintained by :your deponent in her office
in the Town Hall of the Town of Wappinger, Mill Street,
in the Villageof Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County,
New York.
} R
Elaine H. Snowden
Town Clerk
Town of Wappinger
Sworn to before me this
day of 1980.
06,00.4A.0 Yr)
Notary Public
DORIS M. HIGGINS
Votary Public, State of New York
Dutchess County #4626807
Commission expires March 30, 19L
W and S. D.
NEWS'
DISPLAY ADVERTISING
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
914-297-3723
84 EAST MAIN STREET - WAPPINGERS FALLS
Town of YYappppinge', concurrently..
with the Pref minary Budget. of".the
Town of Weppinger, for the fiscal year r.
beginning January t e41 has been,
completed and flied In the officsof the -
Town CJerlr, et Mill Street. Wappingers
Falls, N.Y., where it le available for-Irn:
spectfon by any interested. person, dur-. .
inp rntaloffice hours. Further notice.,
herhaeby plan that the Town -Board of ..
Town of WappInger. will meet and-
View- aald , Pref minty ;Budget; .and
acetal Revenue. Marko. Budpepand
a Publlc, Hearing thereon`at the
TownJuetic. Court.,
14-16 Old Route 9:
Town of Wappingers Wappingers Fa11e
N.Y., at 46:'0000 P.M. on the-3rdday of
November; ,1960 and that at such hear -
Ing any person "may be heard in favor
of or against the Preliminary Budget
se compiled or for or against any Item
or . Items therein contained. Rec-
comendatlone, may, be ,oral) ; or In
writing
- The- Intended- usr'or-the--Feder*
Revenue, Sharing:. Funds and, a e
Neon to the Town Board budget ar
UBEOFFRS-::
cONTRACTUAt
CATEGORY'
General Govern
PubticSaf.ty..r
Health
Transportation '•
Economic Asaistancet
CulRecreation 710,
Ho4?*Community 8siv.
Transfer to Capital Fund
Debtsarvlce Y,
Employee BeneNte.:- =r:
Pursuant to Seettow_10B:'of'the ,To
wn to
followinoTown Officers VW lucky specif
SuPei►iw
,lttliwrivt44:40
Town Justices (2) 1$
Councilman
Councilman (q
Town Clerk
Superintendent of Highways
Dated: October 21,1980-`. �:•:•,._
-5,9
4,373,,
17,092-5
Y ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD,*
ELAINE it SNOWDEN
TOWN CLERK j
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of New York.
County of Dutchess.
Town of Wappinger.
Beatrice Osten
90
of the
Tpwn of Wappinger. Dutchess County. New Yak.
being duly sworn, says that he is. ind al the several ..
tithes hereinafter was, theCo,. ,di.• 0X^Ptrb3.-is4fier
W. &,S.D. NEWS, a newspaper printed and published
every Thursday in the year in the Town of Wappinger.
•Dutchess County, New York. and that the aanexed
NOTICE was duly published in the said newspaper for
araa week successively. .p .. in each week.
commencing on the.....22.1G3day of..AC.tpbe.r...
19and on the following dates thereafter. namely on
and ending on the.. 2 aro.. day of. Ac
1989 both days inclusive.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 22nd day of..;9:ta..cr ........19. 0
Ce -
Notary Public
• My commiufon expires
ALBERT J'e3`t
NOTARY P t;+.. _ ,-: .._','t YORK
vAL 11
4,=1.4-F.2407.0 t
COMMISSION EXP:.::S ::„SiN 30, 19,