Loading...
1967-12-21 PH777 A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger Dec. 21, 1967, at 7:30 P.M. at the Town Hall, Mill St, Wappingers Falls, New York. Present: Joseph H. Fulton, Supervisor Vincent Francese, Justice of the Peace Louis Diehl, Councilman Absent: Louis Clausen, Councilman William Bulger, Justice of the Peace The Supervisor opened the hearing at 7:32 P.M. The Clerk read the following: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED TOWN OF WAPPINGER LOCAL LAW NO. 2, YEAR 1967 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been duly presented to and introduced before the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, on April 6, 1967, Local Law No. 2, of the year 1967 entitled, "A Local Law regulating the establishment, construction, installation, extension, enlargement, acquisition, operation and use of water supply and distribution stems in the Town of Wappinger." NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger will conduct a public hearing on the aforesaid proposed Local Law at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New ;York, on the 21st da' of December 1967, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., on such day, at which time all parties interested will be heard. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that copies of the aforesaid proposed local law will be available for examination and inspection at the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Wappinger, ip the Town Hall between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., E.S.T., on all business days between the date of this notice and the date of, the public hearing. Dated: December 7, 1967 Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York The Clerk offered the Affidavits of Posting and Publication duly sworn to and notarized, for the record. The following letter was read: Dec. 20, 1967 Joseph Quinn, Jr., Attorney-at-law 44 Cannon Street Poughkeepsie, New York Re: Proposed Local Law No. 2, 1967, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York Dear Mr. Quinn: In accordance with your request in your letter dated December 8th, both Mr. Jack Hill and I have reviewed the above mentioned proposed Local Law No. 2 and both he and I find this proposed law highly suitable to meet the current needs of the Town of Wappinger. We further find that it is not in conflict with any of the existing legislation pertaining to the activities of the Health Department. I believe that what the law proposes to do should help, substantailly, in reducjng present and future water supply problems. My best regards and wishes for a happy holiday season. Sincerely yours, s/ Matthew A. Vassallo, M.D. Commissioner of Health Mr. Fulton asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak. Mr. Louis Eck, Hopewell Rd. said he didn't feel it was right that this Board should act on this Local Law, as it was a "Lame Duck" Board, let the new Board act, it wasn't fair that the new Board should be blamed for it. He then referred to the.Water Committees RePort, and asked Mr. Quinn ,to explain the particular law they referred to in it. Mr. Quinn pointed out that the report did not refer to any specific law, that they only pointed out that they felt there weren't any specific standards in the Local Law to serve as a guide line. He added that this Local Law does contain standards, the minimum requirements of the New York State Health Dept. the Conversation Dept. and the Water Resources Commission. (After Mr. Eck read the report for himself, he commented that he thought there had been references which there weren't.) Mr. Eck also felt it was wrong that the two Justices sitting on the Board would possibly be acting in a judicial way at a later time on infractions of this Law, and felt, too, that it was being "railroaded" in. Here Mr. Fulton pointed out that this Law had been before the Board well over a year and that the 1st Public Hearing had been held just a year ago on it, and since that time it had been in Committee. Mr. Eck dwelt on the definition of "abandonment" - confusing :i break- downs with the pure definition of it -and preconclusion of confiscation due to it. He felt it was not clearly defined in the Law - whereby Mr. Fulton and Mr. Quinn tried to point out not only his erroneous interpretation, but that the Transportation Corp._ Law on sewage was basically the same as this Water Law. - Along these same lines, Mr. Vincent Brancato asked about P. 3 on Pg. 3 of the Local Law referring to "maintenance". Mr. Quinn said this did not mean repairs, it referred to keeping the plant in existence. Mr. Brancato asked where'repairs came in, and again, Mr. Quinn answered that there were no prohibitions on repairs. Mr. Brancato concluded that he felt this law would affect people in Wappinger who didn't even know of its existence and also that he didn't feel it should .be in the hands of laymen, that it should be governed by a Water Board. He found it diffi- cult to understand the intent of the Law. Mr. Charles Cortellino, Wildwood Drive, spoke in favor of the Law. He felt it had been before the public, and in Committeelong enough. It appeared to him the_Law was born because of abuses. It provided a control nearby where immediate attention could be given. Just because a law exists on a higher level didn't mean a repetative law could not exist on a lower level. Mr. John Pease, Oakwood Knolls, first stated that he felt that Oakwood wasn't getting good service (with water) since the Town has taken over the plant. He felt the Town should develop a supervisional system tight enough to prevent situations similar to his development. Mr. Sam_Traeger, speaking in favor of the Local Law. He said up to now he hadn't heard any constructive criticism as to specifics in the Law, or, any alternatives to do better. He thought it was a start, that certainly the Town needed guide lines to keep the honest people honest and see a system of control that does that. This, to him appears to be a vehicle by which to avoid situations in the future, such as Oakwood Knolls, and give the Board something to be guided by. Charles Cortellino pointed out_that last May when the Committee was formed there were many objections but they would like to discuss this Law. He felt that a half a year was ample time for the builders to approach the-committee to make constructive proposals not just with just knocking it in general. And further, (referring to a paragraph in the committees' report) asked where this industrial center would be on A11 Angels Road. - Mr. Brancato answering Mr. Cortellino, said that the Committee thought there was -a possibility that the area around Gene Schueles' building (on Myers Corners Rd), with water and sewage in the general vicinity would be_a likely spot to try to attract more industry. Mr. Fulton commented.at_this point that he didn't think that that had been the purpose of the Committee, they had been commissioned to study the Water Law. Malcolm Cornell, Anvil Drive, said he was against this law, but not against a water law - the reason being that it appears to be taking the same steps another township in Maryland had taken a number of years ago, which had created there chaos. They finally solved their problem by setting up a civil service water commission - in essence he would like to see it governed by a non-political board. Another objection he had was in reference to repairs and additions and having to come be- fore the board for permission. 11 Mr. Quinn pointed out there were no prohibitions about making repairs. The -reference was to cincreasing the service area of the system where approval was needed.' Sam Traeger said he would agree with Mr. Cornell if the intent was to set up -a municipal water system but he believed that this was a regula- tory type law, and one similar to a Building Code, here the Town would have the guide lines by which the builders would operate. Mr. Eck said that this particular law was not the right law - he:was against the way this law isn't spelled out. Sam Hankin said he -believed that before a law was enacted you must show a need for the law, and he hasn't heard anyone here come in and condemn -a water system because of failure to operate , or of abandonment of the property which is talked about. He also would liked to have seen this law presented to the New York State Board of Health, for their opinion, and liked to have seen a letter come down from the State, as to this law also an opinion from the Attorney General as to the legality; thirdly he would liked to have gotten an opinion from the 1 '8i Water Resources Commission, because he thought the Town was stepping on their toes with this law. Mr. Woronas objection was that he felt this should be state legislation not town. He felt it was an overlapping of control, and the town wasn't equipped to handle this control. Mr. Fulton called a 10 minute recess at 19:50 P.M. Hearing called back into session at 10:33 P.M. Mr. Traeger questioned the overlapping of controls - whether this law really did duplicate existing control by other governing bodies. Mr. Quinn pointed out there were no agencies in the town that could govern any area that this law would encompass. Mr. Bruce Statz brought up the question of selling a water system. Mr. Fulton explained that the town would have to have an overwhelming reason for not permitting the sale of a system that it was unlikely possibility. Mr. Eck voiced his opinion that there hadn't been considerable time given to the study of this law. Mr. Francese pointed out that it had been before the board for just about a year, and the board members had gone over it quite thoroughly. Mr. Diehl said he was more confused now than he was a year ago. He was certainly in favor of this type of a law, but in view of the facts that had come up tonight, i.e. more specifically, about selling of systems etc. he questions that this is the law - that there are parts to it that should be spelled out specifically, and inview of this he felt the board should delay its decision tonight and give it back to committee, to clear up the questionable points that he feels are in it, and bring back a law that the town can enforce, a law that is needed to protect the people. Mr. Fulton asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard. There were none. Hearing was closed at 10:43 P.M. Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk