TOWN
OF WALLKILL PLANNING BOARD
RE-ORGANIZATIONAL
MEETING
JANUARY
8, 2003
CHAIRMAN:
Gary Lake
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
T. Hamilton
ATTORNEY:
Gardiner Barone
ENGINEER:
McGoey, Hauser & Edsall
NEWSPAPER:
Times Herald Record
MEETINGS:
First and Third Wednesday with work
sessions
and extra meetings as needed
on
the Second and Fourth Wednesday.
TOWN
OF WALLKILL PLANNING BOARD
MEETING
JANUARY
8, 2003
MEMBERS
PRESENT: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, P. Owen
MEMBERS
ABSENT: G. Luenzmann, G. Monaco
OTHERS
PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey
1.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. - PARLAPIANO - TWO FAMILY - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE
PERMIT - Midland Lakes Road (24-1-4.2) #105-002
G.
Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:38 P.M. C. Kelly read the Public Hearing
notice.
C.
Kelly: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Board
of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, New York, will be held at the Town
Hall at 600 Route 211 East, in said Town, on the 8th day of January
2003 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day
on the application of Parlapiano for approval of a two-family home on Midland
Lakes Road and Baker Road under Section 249-38 of the Zoning Law of the Town
of Wallkill. All parties of interest will be heard at said time and place.
S/Gary Lake, Chairman
G.
Lake: Do you want to give us a brief description of what you want to do?
D.
Sawransky: We want to put two cape cod side by side to make it a two-family
house. There will be a garage in between with a separation of a fire wall
separating the garage from both sides of the dwelling. The property is approximately
1,400 feet deep.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board before I go to the Public.
A.
Dulgarian: Nothing at this time.
P.
Owen: Nothing at this time.
R.
Carr: Nothing at this time.
T.
Hamilton: Nothing right now.
G.
Lake: Is there anybody who wishes to speak on this application?
MOTION
to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 7:42 P.M. made by T. Hamilton and seconded
by P. Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
G.
Lake: Do you have Dick’s comments?
D.
Yanosh: Yes. We didn’t take care a lot of the comments. We’re in the middle
of getting approval from the Department of Environmental Conservation to cross
the wetlands area. The septic system also has to go to the Health Department
because of the type of soils. I will need to get approval from them.
D.
McGoey: What does that mean, by the type of the soils?
D.
Yanosh: We have to put in a filled system in and Eustance & Horowitz will
not review a filled system so we need to go to the Health Department for that.
The house will have to be moved up the hill a little bit so the driveway has
to be revised. Some of Dick’s comments are the driveway details and things
like that which we can meet with no problem at all. In order to proceed with
the Health Department we want to make sure we can build the two-family house
and the septic system will be designed for a two-family house.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board for any additional comments.
A.
Dulgarian: Nothing at this time.
P.
Owen: Nothing at this time.
R.
Carr: Nothing at this time.
T.
Hamilton: Dan, on the filled systems I know years ago when we had systems
done that needed to be filled the Board of Health wouldn’t approve anything
until they had seen it installed and make sure that it works.
D.
Yanosh: That’s what is going to happen. I talked to the Board of Health Supervisor
last week and the way he explained it to me is while we’re going through them,
they will come out and do another deep hole test, check the soils side by
side for it and during construction they are going to make sure that the percolation
is going through and then do a testing. They will be monitoring the whole
process.
G.
Lake: Dick, are there many outstanding comments?
D.
McGoey: They were all engineering but they were from December 4th
and you generally want those plans revised. Maybe in this case if you want
to grant them Preliminary Approval which is a little out of the ordinary for
a minor thing like this so they can go to the Health Department and then bring
them back in.
D.
Yanosh: We want to make sure that we get an approval.
G.
Lake: True but it puts everybody in a tough spot in case. The last time you
were here they all pretty well understood exactly what you wanted to do but
just in case. You think they can go with a Preliminary?
D.
McGoey: That would get them to the Health Department.
G.
Lake: That’s where you really need to go at this time.
A.
Dulgarian: Nothing at this time.
P.
Owen: Nothing at this time.
R.
Carr: Nothing at this time.
T.
Hamilton: Maybe what Dan is looking for is do we have a problem or we don’t
have a problem with the two-family.
D.
Yanosh: Yes.
G.
Lake: If we give him Preliminary it’s pretty much that’s what we’re saying.
Mr. Barone do we have to worry about the sixty two days?
G.
Barone: If you give them Preliminary Approval and it’s with the understanding
with the acknowledgment of the Health Department is for final approval which
will be granted by those conditions.
G.
Lake: We don’t have to worry about the sixty two days or should we ask for
it?
D.
Yanosh: It will take at least that for the Health Department. We will waive
the time frame.
G.
Lake: I think I will like that.
MOTION
for PRELIMINARY APPROVAL for applicant to proceed with the Health Department
with applicant waiving the time frame made by T. Hamilton and seconded by
R. Carr.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
2.
PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION - GOLDEN TRIANGLE - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT -
Silver Lake Scotchtown Road (40-1-16, 41-1-45, 50-1-62) #074-002
G.
Lake: Public Scoping Hearing started at 7:46 P.M.
F.
Wells: I’m with Tim Miller Associates. I have an affidavit of mailing of
the notices for your file. I believe you have the affidavit of publication.
G.
Lake: Please make a brief presentation of the plan.
F.
Wells: This is a plan of the overall complex for this development. It consists
of approximately ninety two acres. Proposed is a mixed use development of
commercial as well as residential townhouses and condominiums. This plan
shows the commercial portion is largely geared on the eventual connecting
road between Silver Lake Scotchtown Road and Route 211. A portion of this
commercial development will be done prior to the completion of the new connecting
road. The two driveway connections proposed here, one is for the residential
portion for a primary access. The secondary access for Phase I residential
would be at the location of the future town road. That means that the residential
portion will have two access points and the other development would have two
access points. The purpose of this meeting is for the scoping so we can put
comments on the draft We are here tonight to hear comments. We are in receipt
of comments from Mr. McGoey and I can go through the scoping outline with
you if you would like or I can suggest where the points that Mr. McGoey suggested
so they can go into the scope as well.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board and then we will go to the Public.
A.
Dulgarian: I have nothing.
P.
Owen: I have nothing.
R.
Carr: Nothing now.
T.
Hamilton: Do we have any information from the Department of Transportation
that this has even been before them on input on what their thoughts are on
where the ramp is going with what you’re showing on your plan.
F.
Wells: Our plan is a direct copy of what the Department of Transportation
initial study which were done a couple of years ago on this ramp. We have
accommodated that directly from their initial studies of this ramp configuration.
T.
Hamilton: Who will pay for this?
F.
Wells: It’s a Department of Transportation project right now in the planning
phases.
T.
Hamilton: Do we have that in writing that the Department of Transportation
is going to pay for that?
G.
Lake: Dick, I was going to follow that up with you. Do we have information
on that?
D.
McGoey: I haven’t seen that.
F.
Wells: One of the comments that was made at an earlier meeting was that we
include in the documents in terms of their input on this and we intend to
do that.
G.
Lake: I think what Mr. Hamilton is asking about and I was going to ask and
he beat me to it.
P.
Greeley: Maybe I can answer it. I am with John Collins Engineers.
G.
Lake: Go ahead.
P.
Greeley: As part of this proposal just for a little background. This was
evaluated about ten years ago. It was submitted to the Department of Transportation.
They’ve been involved in the process. As part of the Exit 122 overall study
that covered through the Exit 120 interchange this was one of the alternative
road configuration and ramp configuration that was looked at. The proposal
on to this plan is that the road would be built with the generous part of
the project. It would be part of how this development would occur. The funding
on the ramp would either be part of the project and, there are alternatives
in terms of the design. Pretty much what you see on this plan is the concept
that had been advanced with the Department of Transportation and had been
reviewed. It was one of the several alternatives that they looked at in terms
of improving access in this area. In the discussions with the Department
of Transportation they have not ruled out participating in the funding of
it. This is something that would be hashed out in the “DEIS” because basically
Department of Transportation has said come back in with the plan because it
was some time ago that we had the original proposal. The road itself and
what Mr. Wells had indicated, this is a project that would be phased. The
first phase is without the roadway. Some of the other development could occur
even without the full connection and with the ramps being re-constructed.
It would be phased in and the final funding of the roadway and the ramp re-construction
would be contingent upon several factors such as how the project mixes. Since
we are doing a generic on the combination of retail and office uses there,
we are working with the Department of Transportation and we will continue
to keep the Board involved.
T.
Hamilton: Some of those remarks Phase I, the housing part, they don’t need
the ramps so the ramps won’t be started with the housing. Now you are saying
that some of the other construction in there may have the ramps, may not have
the ramps. I, myself, I can’t see approving this project for the construction
or the phasing in there without seeing those roadways in there. When? You
don’t know when. You don’t know what those ramps are going to look like.
P.
Greeley: You’re right. That will be spelled out in the Environmental Assessment
Form. By no means, we haven’t finished. We haven’t done all the studies
yet. Your comments are appropriate. All I’m saying is we’ve looked at it
from the phasing stand point. We will have to know the alignment to the road,
approval of the road, but for example, if we put a small office building or
some small retail there you may not need to have the ramps in if you have
twenty thousand square feet of other development.
G.
Lake: I think what this Board as a whole is that we get these townhouses and
nothing else and all of a sudden we’re thinking down the road we don’t see
anybody. I think that’s a big part of it.
P.
Greeley: We will hash that out.
T.
Hamilton: Even with the housing we will be sending this new traffic towards
the tunnel to get to Route 211, down Tower Drive to get to Route 211. The
main thing for that ramp was to alleviate adding any more traffic to those
roads that are there and without it you are just going to over burden what
we have on those roads now. The other thing, Mr. Chairman, I was wondering
if there is a way of locking in. We’ve heard phases and we’ve been stung
before where the applicants have sold off phases and now we can’t get the
two or three to work together because of the different phasing.
G.
Lake: That is an excellent point.
T.
Hamilton: The other problem I’m worrying about also is the housing. We’ve
got a residential housing project in a commercial zone now and every time
even though it’s surrounded by PID or MI every time something wants to get
built there the people that are in the houses either they came up in the dark
or they weren’t told by the realtor that this is what is going to be built.
I don’t want to see townhouses there and in five years if the other part doesn’t
develop the guy comes in to our Board and says, wait a minute, we’re putting
up a six-story or five-story hotel in my backyard. I think it’s going to
be a problem for us having the residential backed up to that commercial property
without knowing what’s going in there now.
G.
Lake: The zone down on Silver Lake Scotchtown Road heading towards the firehouse,
what is that? I don’t see it on the map.
F.
Wells: I’m pretty sure it is a residential zone.
R.
Carr: There is PID here also.
G.
Lake: I think Mr. Hamilton is right about that also.
F.
Wells: The existing parcel is PID but I don’t believe it goes beyond the railroad
tracks. The other side of the railroad tracks I believe is residential.
G.
Lake: I will open this to the Public, are there any comments?
W.
Cummings: We had met with the applicant earlier and that’s why I didn’t think
anything further would have to be said. However, in meeting with the applicant
we would lead to believe that the apartment complex was going to be built
first with the connector road and then no other development was going to be
built until the roads for egress and entrance were built first before future
development. The Fire Department would still ask that the Planning Board
in the scoping identify alternatives if that’s not going to happen. Also,
we would like to know what the uses of the commercial area will be. We realize
it is speculative right now but we want to make sure that we have a good idea
of what’s going in types of items and height of the buildings.
G.
Lake: Thank you.
W.
Cummings: Just one other thing. Ten years ago when they first went to you
on the access the Department of Transportation was looking for the Town to
pick up twenty five percent, the same as they were doing for Route 211.
G.
Lake: Anybody else that would like to speak? Dick, your comments? Do you
think we need to go through these one by one?
D.
McGoey: I would say only if the applicant or the Planning Board has any comments
about them if you have any objections to them or you want to make modifications.
G.
Lake: Have you had a chance to look at those comments?
F.
Wells: Yes.
G.
Lake: Do you feel you can answer them or do you have any comments yourself
on those?
F.
Wells: The first one, alternatives, the proposed action, and we did suggest
alternatives in here. It’s kind of a generic but I can outline what we had
in mine if you want to.
G.
Lake: I think he’s looking for more specific on it.
F.
Wells: On page 9 of the draft scope, alternative “B”, alternative land use
configuration. What we were intending to do in reviewing this is a greater
residential use of the entire parcel and less commercial. It would be a different
mix of uses. Alternative “C”, alternative access would be an alternative
if the ramps are not built and the connector road is not built through to
Route 211.
D.
McGoey: There’s a lot of alternative uses in the PID zone and the residential
uses are very limited.
F.
Wells: Yes.
D.
McGoey: You’re saying you are going to expand the residential use which I
don’t think is really appropriate for the PID zone.
F.
Wells: The authorization allowed six hundred units and we’re proposing two
hundred ninety now. It could be a mix of different types of residential.
G.
Lake: That was ten years ago also.
T.
Hamilton: Just because you had the authorization where you could possibly
do that, that doesn’t mean that this Board is going to let you do that.
F.
Wells: Absolutely.
G.
Lake: I don’t want to mislead you there.
F.
Wells: The purpose of the alternatives is to allow this Board to see the potentials
for other configurations of development so that you have more to see in other
configurations.
D.
McGoey: I think you should look into uses that are allowed in the PID zone.
I don’t think that this Board thinks that the residential in conjunction with
the commercial is the best use. You may think so from the market stand point.
You may want to look at a use that doesn’t have any residential loss.
G.
Lake: The rest of Dick’s comments.
F.
Wells: Item “B” is fine. “C” we can add that in. “D” I had a question on
the terminology here. Paragraph entitled “Air Resources” should include quality
impact that may result on the residents and commercial activity in the immediate
proposed development, as same relates to, I don’t understand. . .
D.
McGoey: What is the air quality along Route 17? There isn’t a residential
development that close to Route 17 conducive to air quality.
F.
Wells: The proposed residential?
D.
McGoey: Correct.
T.
Hamilton: What about the noise also?
D.
McGoey: Noise also. That’s in a different section.
F.
Wells: I believe noise is covered in here.
T.
Hamilton: Dick, does he have a list of standard items that should be determined
under the scoping?
D.
McGoey: Yes. They essentially went through this scoping check list but they
abbreviated some of the sections. I went back through and added some things
that I felt should have been put back in.
F.
Wells: We did not include under the section “C”, noise. Would you like that
included as well?
T.
Hamilton: Yes.
G.
Lake: We are discussing the whole parcel of land.
F.
Wells: Yes. Under Dick’s item “E” he suggested the discussion of agricultural
resources. To my knowledge this is not designated agricultural land or has
any agricultural soils that are listed in the State listing. We can reiterate
that in the documents. The traffic intersections I believe these are acceptable
to us to include these. We will add those to the list. Item “G” that can
looked at and accessed as well. Item “H” proposed zoning changes. We need
to find out what those are and obviously be presented in the Environmental
Assessment Statement.
T.
Hamilton: Dick, what about any tax benefits? Are they in line for any tax
breaks that we don’t know of at this time?
D.
McGoey: I would have to go back and check the fiscal section.
F.
Wells: The fiscal analysis is on Page 8.
D.
McGoey: I think what Mr. Hamilton is saying, are you looking for the Empire
Zone, IDA, those type of things?
G.
Lake: I will go back through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: Nothing at this time.
P.
Owen: I just have a problem with putting a large project such as this of residential
which backs into a PID zone with unknowns of what’s necessarily going to happen
after that, if anything. Just having that unknown out there next to residential
properties in a PID zone. I have a real problem with that.
R.
Carr: Nothing at this time.
T.
Hamilton: I have the same concerns as Mr. Owen. With that unknown, I think
we should look into on what our setback is going to be from that residential
to where this commercial is going to be and what kind of setbacks we are going
to look for being it is next to a residential area. We may want to increase
especially not knowing what’s going to happen.
MOTION
to close the PUBLIC SCOPING HEARING at 8:15 P.M. made by R. Carr and seconded
by T. Hamilton.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
F.
Wells: I can revise this scoping document and send it to Dick for his review.
G.
Lake: To include everything we talked about tonight.
F.
Wells: Absolutely. I will put everything in it’s proper place in the scope.
Can the Board adopt the scope tonight subject to these changes being made?
G.
Lake: Dick is that okay or would you like to see it first?
D.
McGoey: It’s up to the Board.
G.
Lake: I would like to see a little bit more information about this ramp and
who is going to do what. I will poll the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: It makes sense.
P.
Owen: I would like to see more information on that also.
R.
Carr: I agree.
T.
Hamilton: Dick, you said something about Preliminary. Is there such a thing?
D.
McGoey: Tonight it’s only Preliminary.
F.
Wells: The intent of the scope is basically a table of contents or index for
us to go forward with the Environmental Impact Statement analysis and we typically
as the Board to adopt it so that we would feel comfortable before we move
ahead that we have a feeling as to what the issues are that needs to be discussed.
G.
Lake: I’m not trying to speak for the whole Board but I think we’re just holding
back a little bit because of the mechanism of doing the work on the infrastructures.
I’m not satisfied with that at this time.
F.
Wells: Mr. Chairman, in terms of where we need to go, we have to go back to
the Department of Transportation. One of the things that is holding us up
is Department of Transportation is asking us is this a real project in terms
of the Town even starting the process. In the scoping document we have to
give you answers. We can’t go ahead with the project without the road. We
know that. One of the things that happens in the process is we have a scope.
You give us everything that we have to address, all the traffic issues, all
the intersections that have to be studied, all of the other issues. I think
Dick has added a few that we missed which are now in there. Once we have
the scoping document then we can go forward and we will have to be back with
answers. It’s not like you’re accepting a completed document at this time.
It’s just allows us to move to the next step. If you can adopt the scope
then we can move forward to get you more definitive answers and we can also
get more input from the Department of Transportation. I would appreciate
it.
T.
Hamilton: I’ve seen this project for a long time. It’s hard to believe that
ten years it has been around and we still don’t have any answers on seventy
five percent of the items on this plan. It’s here tonight and almost looks
like it was ten years ago and we still don’t have any answers. You will have
to make good on that document before I’m going to approve this project.
P.
Owen: Counsel, if we end up voting on this are we locking ourselves in?
G.
Barone: No. What you are doing is you’re giving them the initial scope of
the Environmental Impact Analysis which will go into the Draft Environmental
Impact Analysis.
Then
you have the opportunity to review that Draft Environmental Impact Analysis
and you tell them if they need more depth in the areas. When they come to
you with the Final Environmental Impact Analysis that you adopt that analysis
as your own. Right now, you’re saying go out and look into it and report
back to us with the Draft Environmental Impact Analysis. We may tell them
that the Draft Environmental Impact Analysis is no good and won’t accept it.
Go back and do more work on it or some of the analysis already done has brought
up some other issues that need to be analyzed further. You’re not locking
yourself into saying it’s feasible. It’s to their benefit that if you do
have certain issues such as the ramp that they address it and put it in the
document. This is just items that you want them to bring back for your determination.
MOTION
to accept the SCOPING DOCUMENT as modified made by G. Lake and seconded by
P. Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
3.
SELFCO - SITE PLAN REVISION - East Main Street/Schutt Road (50-2-53.2)
#042-002
CANCELLED.
4.
THE FAIRWAYS (formerly Clubside) - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Golf Links
Road (73-1-31.2, 33.2, 33.3) #120-002
P.
Evans: I run MGD Development which is an affiliate of Ginsberg Development
of Hawthorne, New York. We’re here tonight to review a sketch plan for The
Fairways which previously was called Clubside. I think it is important tonight
that the first thing I state is that we are not a part of Clubside, have nothing
to do with Clubside, and we are the contract/ purchaser from the bank or investors
that foreclosed on Clubside and took over Clubside a year or two ago. The
first thing I would like to do is to describe a little bit of who Ginsberg
Development and MGD Development is and then to review our sketch plan review.
While we’re doing that if the Board will allow us we have a very short little
slide presentation to show you the quality of the type of units that we’re
building and some of the types of units that we would be considering building
here. What I would like to do now is just tell you that Ginsberg Development
which was started about forty years ago now by two individuals, Sam Ginsberg
and Martin Ginsberg, both Architects. The company now is in six States.
We have over three thousand apartments in four of those States. We have a
management company which runs all of our apartments and condominiums and so
forth. We also have a development company and a building company. The building
company is in six States. We are I guess one of the regional builders that
has gone national. At this time we’re working at Disney In Celebration.
We’re also working with Disney in Vero Beach next to their resort down there.
We’re building an apartment complex in Orlando. We are also building In Celebration
with Disney right now. As you also know, we are in Orange County. You probably
know that we were just given the award in the Village of Goshen to work on
the Salesian property. We are also the developers selected to work on the
Haverstraw Waterfront Project which we have been working on for almost two
years now. It has two miles of waterfront along with the renovation and restoration
of much of the downtown waterfront area for building residential and commercial.
The books I gave you will go into detail some of the architectural awards
and building awards and national awards that we’ve won over the years. One
of the awards we just one for professional builders which I don’t have in
that book is we were selected the number one builder in the country for customer
satisfaction of any sized builder. This is the first time in the history
of the awards that anyone East of the Mississippi has received that. I think
that one of the things that we bring which hopefully you can see, not only
in that manual but you will see in the presentation is the quality of work
we do, how we try and incorporate the sites, woods, screens, etc. into our
projects. How we go out of our way to create entrance features and water
features and so forth. We are a medium to high in builder. We try at all
times to create an atmosphere of luxury. We have built about every product
you can imagine, anything from a high-rise, seven story/eight story building
to
townhouses, to flats, to single family neighborhoods throughout this area.
One of the things that is important to us is that we work with the community.
We would like to deal with the engineers, the Town Planners, and the Planning
Board and we would like to do that in a work session basis to really get into
all the details. What I would like to do now if you have just a couple seconds
is maybe we can lower the lights and we have a very short little power point
presentation. After that I would like to ask our Planner to come up and review
the plan and go into detail with that. We also have our traffic expert here
and our Engineer if you have additional questions and then we will go from
there with the Board’s permission.
