Are Stocks & Pillory Next?

The Town Board Meeting on April 24 was a doozy.

It started out with thanks from the Wappingers Historical Society for the support the town board has provided it and acknowledgment of a Display Case in the Town Hall Foyer - currently filled with medical items from Wappinger - including a machine which used electric shoes as part of treatment.

Everyone was then treated to performance by Dr. Bonk - the Wappingers Central School District Budget Report. The details of the budget, to be voted on May 16, can be found here - https://www.wappingersschools.org/cms/lib/NY01001463/Centricity/Domain/2402/2023-2024%20Board%20Adopted%20Budget%20Book.pdf -- basically the tax levy proposed would be a 1.67% increase from last year. A few notes, Dr. Bonk mentioned a fund balance several times, and that NY State chastised the district about the large size of the fund balance. He said he viewed this as a "good thing". He also mentioned several capital projects that will be funded from the fund balance - "not costing the taxpayers". Fund Balance 101 lesson-- Fund Balance funds ARE Taxpayer dollars -- and taxing entities that have large fund balances have moved $$ from the tax payer's fund balance (aka personal SAVINGS) to theirs. Large Fund balances are not a virtue, they indicate that tax levies in years past were too high. This is NOT a recommendation to spend freely or that no fund balance is required, but to pat oneself on the back for great fiscal management is an overreach.

Also, in Dr. Bonk's review -- was the statement that all of the district's elementary schools have increasing enrollment - which of course will impact the Jr. High and High Schools in a few years. (NOTE: when new housing developments have been proposed in the past - the developers and town supervisor have indicated that the schools have capacity and declining enrollments).

A public hearing reviewing the proposed resolution increasing the fees and fines associated with the Town Building Code was held. Ms. Roberti explained that projects that remain open for a long period of time could create undesirable safety situations - for example people using space/pools without the proper building/electrical inspections.

The Supervisor then discussed the 9-Element Plans for Wappinger Creek and Sprout Creek. Copies can be obtained from the Supervisor's office.

The Board approved up to $50,000 to be approved to replace the roof on the administration building at Carnwath Farms - correcting an earlier roofing job where plywood sheathing was not used, causing the shingles to fall off the roof and many leaks to occur. (Question -what is the role of the engineering firm and building department professionals in overseeing work on town buildings?)

$3K for fixing a concrete culvert at Rockingham park was approved - and a discussion of the color of the new pickle ball courts was held (blue requested).

The Supervisor then presented a preliminary floor plan for an upgraded Senior Center at Town Hall - which would included ADA entrances, enabling ambulances to drive up to the entrance, expanding the capacity by 700 Square Feet.

Lights that the town put in place in a park to prevent vandalism are now shining in neighbors' homes -- (Hint: the Town Building Code has been updated to specifically prevent this problem... and is being used to constrain the lighting at the proposed CarMax facility -- should the town follow its own building code?)

Two Resolutions designating May as "Older American's Month" and "Mental Health Month" were passed, with the recreation director outlining the activities for seniors in May.

Resolutions addressing the Planning for updates for Fleetwood Sewer District were passed. These are pre-reqs to applying for funding and grants.

A resolution reappointing a member of the Board of Assessment was passed.

THEN.... if you recall, at the last board meeting, there was a discussion about a property on 376 that was filled with too many unlicensed cars, many tires, many auto parts, metal, garden debris etc. and that the situation impacts neighbors, is a safety and aesthetic concern - and has not been resolved through court actions etc. The discussion at the last board meeting was a proposal to hire firm(s) to clean up the property at Town expense, recouping the funds from the homeowner.

The Public Hearing on Monday became a quasi court hearing - with the representative of the building department taking an oath to tell the truth, and being cross-examined by a senior member of the law firm hired by the town. Explicit details, timelines, action taken were described in painstaking detail. The Town Board Members then asked questions - in a formal fashion distinctly different from the more free-wheeling discussion typically held during public hearings.

Then the homeowner was allowed to come to the dais, was requested to take an oath to tell the truth.... explaining his long-time ties to the area, his plans that have gone awry and his current efforts to move/license and landscape the property. He explained he could get this accomplished in a week.

The board then approved the building department spending the funds required to clean-up the property if it would be required.

The members of the public attending this meeting were left stunned and incredibly uncomfortable at the specter of a fellow resident being castigated publicly - with legal professionals, building department professionals and the town board questioning him.

The Ward 1 Council representative articulated his feeling that this process/approach was very unusual and not appropriate.

This is NOT to say that the town and fellow residents should tolerate messy/unsafe/eyesores in their neighborhoods. We all want to live in calm, beautiful surroundings with open space/nature (as Dr. Bonk mentioned earlier in the evening was the draw for people moving to the area with their children) - and the purpose of the zoning code is to enable that. The professionals in the building department need tools/processes to help them manage and implement the code. The courts have processes and approaches which address issues while preserving the dignity of all parties involved. The public hearing (in which NO neighbors of the homeowner attended) should have followed normal public hearing processes and focused on the ability of the town to fund contracts enabling the clean-up of the property... and the court, which has been involved, can address the manner of the clean-up and criteria - and consequences.

It would also be very helpful to understand the criteria used by the building department to address messy/unsafe/eyesores that are affecting the quality of life of neighbors and the steps that they use. Unfortunately there are - and have been - such situations in the town which have not been addressed, continued to not be addressed - so a quixotic approach is not helpful to anyone - neighbors, property owners, building department professionals.