TOWN OF WALLKILL
PLANNING BOARD REORGANIZATION
JANUARY 16, 2002

Vice Chairman: V. Werany

Meetings: First and Third Wednesdays Monthly

Alternate Meetings/Work Sessions: Second and Fourth Wednesdays

Newspaper: Times Herald Record

Engineer: McGoey, Hauser & Edsall

Attorney: Gardiner Barone

MOTION made by T. Hamilton and seconded by G. Luenzmann for approval of the Reorganization for the year 2002.

VOTING AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann, P. Owen, V. Werany

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

TOWN OF WALLKILL PLANNING BOARD

MEETING

JANUARY 16, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann, P. Owen, V. Werany

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

OTHERS PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey

1. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. - FERRANTE - 4 LOT SUBDIVISION - Bart Bull Road (31-1-32.4) #037-001

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:33 P.M. C. Kelly read the Public Hearing notice.

C. Kelly: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING of 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 16th day of January 2002 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the application of A. Ferrante & Sons at 2713 Route 17M, New Hampton, New York for approval of a four lot residential subdivision located on Bart Bull Road 300 feet southeast of Route 211 East under Section 249-25 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

J. Dillin: I am representing the applicant.

G. Lake: Can you give us a description of what you want to do?

J. Dillin: The application before you is a property that is owned by A. Ferrante & Sons. It's located in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. The property is located on Bart Bull Road approximately three hundred feet south of Route 211. It consists of 7.7 acres. On the proposal before the Board it's a four lot residential subdivision of the property. This is a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial zone. We've also done the formulas just like we were in a residential zone and exceed the soil formulas in all cases. It will be

serviced by individual wells and individual septic systems. There's no interior road. There will be four driveways coming out of Bart Bull Road.

G. Lake: Before I go to the Public, I will go to the Board at this time to see if they have any comments.

V. Werany: Not at this time.

A. Dulgarian: No.

P. Owen: I will wait.

G. Luenzmann: Not at this time.

T. Hamilton: Dick, did he clear up your questions?

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Lake: I will go to the Public at this time.

H. Smith: I own and operate Sycamore Farms which comes up next to one of the lots. I have an active vegetable farm. We plow ground, we make dust, we make noise, we make odors and it's what we do when we farm.

G. Lake: Right.

H. Smith: We're concerned about how close a house, swimming pool, whatever is going to be located near us. We plow right to the property line. We plow every year. There's another farm on the other side of Bart Bull Road so they would be a problem also. There are some laws that come into play. Agricultural & Markets, Section 310, the disclosure if you're building next to a farm in an Agricultural District. It states basically, I would assume you are familiar or not, it states at sale or prior to sale people have to be notified and basically sign off. Our question is could it be done sooner so people don't wait until the last minute because if closing prior to sale people are going to sign anything that's put in front of them.

G. Lake: Right. I will answer that with what I am going to propose to the Board. I did have this discussion before this. I was looking at it with a couple of people. Basically what we are going to propose is a note on the map I am going to propose to the Board and our Attorney Mr. Barone will work out a note by the time it is signed saying that there's a working farm that works up to the property line, beware.

H. Smith: Right.

G. Lake: This way, we don't worry about the fertilizer and everything else, including the dust.

H. Smith: We want to be good neighbors. We use machines that make noise. It could be irritating to neighbors. We're just trying to solve a problem. The only other thing that we have on that piece is that we are all zoned Manufacturing Industrial and the other reason to leave a buffer would be some time in the future having a use for Manufacturing Industrial and residential is going to conflict.

G. Lake: The houses if approved would have to meet the setbacks on the property. As far as your concern with the noise, the dust, the fertilizer I worked on that the last couple of days finding out about it and we're going to have our attorney write something. By the time of Final Approval we will have it on the map so when people do buy they know.

H. Smith: We try to work with all the neighbors we have.

D. McGoey: Is your property in an Agricultural District?

H. Smith: Yes.

D. McGoey: There's another provision that has been pointed out to me and that is that an Agricultural Date Statement must be made by the applicant. This is something new to me. I've never heard of it. I will read it. Agricultural Data Statement. AAny application for a Special Use Permit, Site Plan Approval or Subdivision Approval requires Planning Board Approval that would occur on property within an Agricultural District containing a farm operation or on property with boundaries within five hundred feet of a farm operation located in an Agricultural District shall include an Agricultural Data Statement. The Planning Board shall evaluate and consider the Agricultural Data Statement in it's review of a possible impact of the proposed project upon the functioning of the farm operation within such Agricultural District@.

G. Lake: My question to that is, first of all, he operates under the Agricultural District but he's not in the Agricultural District.

H. Smith: That's incorrect. I'm in the Agricultural District. It has nothing to do with the zoning.

D. McGoey: You can be in an Agricultural District overlaid on the Manufacturing.

H. Smith: The Agricultural District is a different thing set up by the Agricultural & Markets Law and it's quoted in my letter.

G. Lake: I've been trying for a couple days to see where we stand on this.

H. Smith: This doesn't just affect me as far as the Agricultural Data Statement. There's another farm on the other side of Bart Bull Road that is within the parameters. There's a greenhouse operation that borders the other. I'm not sure how they fall in. There's more than one that needs to be looked at.

G. Lake: I think what's going to happen is it will end up being a Town Board issue to pass something. I don't know if they need to.

D. McGoey: I don't think they do. I think what the applicant needs to do between now and Final Approval fill out this Agricultural Data Statement which is a form. We will review it before Final Approval and see if there are any impacts.

G. Lake: Fine.

A. Dulgarian: What property is yours? Which lot?

H. Smith: I don't know my lot number. We have two hundred thirty seven acres.

G. Lake: We are working on that and we do appreciate your information.

MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 7:44 P.M. made by V. Werany and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

VOTING AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann, P. Owen, V. Werany

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

D. McGoey: All I have is some technical issues he can straighten out by final. A cross section that Dan Patanaude has requested showing the clearing of the right-of-way. A note indicating that the grading operation will not attract drainage along the shoulder of the road.

V. Werany: I think we covered it. I was concerned about that flag lot there but I don't think there is any other way to get around that.

A. Dulgarian: I don't care for the flag lot either. I would like to see the location of where the houses are to find out what the setbacks are and site distance on Bart Bull Road.

D. McGoey: It's good.

P. Owen: I'm not too pleased the way the lots dwelling is, where it is on the map on lot #1 just because we don't know how close that farm necessarily is and how far the operation goes. If it is to the end of the property then that dwelling is going to be very close to the farming operation.

J. Dillin: Back in here, is the wetland line, the buffer line. There is nothing within five hundred feet.

A. Dulgarian: How far is the rear of the house from the rear lot line?

J. Dillin: One hundred and ten feet.

G. Lake: One hundred and ten feet?

J. Dillin: Approximately.

G. Luenzmann: No. I don't have a problem with it.

T. Hamilton: Nothing.

G. Lake: This has been through a work session with you Dick?

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Lake: The regulation that we just talked about.

G. Barone: It is Section 283-A.

G. Lake: Dick, do you have that form that he would have to fill out?

D. McGoey: There is a form here. Carol has a copy.

G. Lake: Between now and final.

J. Dillin: I will fill it out.

G. Lake: You will have to fill out. I will also like to see on here a note stating that there is a farm operation next to the property and that the section of the law 283-A is in affect just so everybody knows.

G. Barone: One of the requirements of Section 283-A is that the data sheet be mailed to the farmers adjoining the development.

G. Lake: Is there an instruction sheet with that?

G. Barone: There appears to be but I am going to review it independent of what was provided to me to make sure it is complete.

MOTION for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by A. Dulgarian.

VOTING AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann, P. Owen, V. Werany

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

MOTION for PRELIMINARY APPROVAL subject to D. McGoey's comments made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by P. Owen.

VOTING AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann, P. Owen, V. Werany

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

2. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - BAUM - 9 LOT SUBDIVISION - VanAmburgh Road (31-1-17) #018-001

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:48 P.M. C. Kelly read the Public Hearing notice.

C. Kelly: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING of 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 16th day of January, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the application of Theodore and Yvette G. Baum at Route 211, Montgomery, New York for approval of a nine lot residential subdivision located on VanAmburgh Road 800 feet northwest of Route 211 under Section 249-19 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: Before I go to the Public, I will go to the Board.

V. Werany: I'm looking for site distances. Dick, are there site distances on this?

D. McGoey: No.

V. Werany: Can you furnish us with that information?

D. McGoey: It should be shown.

J. Dillin: Is that on the road entrance?

V. Werany: On your access road, what's your site distance left and right?

J. Dillin: Yes, we will.

V. Werany: Also, I was looking at the topography there. Your lot #4 sits pretty high and the northeast part that borders on VanAmburgh there it's a potential lot. It also has the potential to be in the wetland because of the down slope. Do you have any further plans to subdivide that?

J. Dillin: No. We don't think we can and we will put a note on it.

V. Werany: I would like to see a note stating no further subdivision. What's the square footage on lot #2? It's awful small.

J. Dillin: It's over 40,000 square feet. I can put that on the square footage.

V. Werany: Yes, please do.

A. Dulgarian: No.

P. Owen: Nothing.

G. Luenzmann: I will wait for the public.

T. Hamilton: Just Dick's comments. Usually we have most of these taken care of before it gets to this point.

D. McGoey: It's a lot of small issues and not a lot of big issues.

G. Lake: Did you cover these at the work session?

D. McGoey: We had an initial work session for sketch plan and then prior to Preliminary we did not have another work session.

T. Hamilton: Does the applicant have any problems with Dick's comments?

J. Dillin: Just to clarify one of Dick's comments was the extension of a future road.

D. McGoey: I will explain that. As you can see the lands behind the subdivision are the lands of Ferrante which also front on VanAmburgh Road. My thought was that if there was going to be a future subdivision of that property this road would eliminate the dead end and they can loop around back out to VanAmburgh Road and provide two means of ingress and egress.

G. Luenzmann: Instead of the cul-de-sac?

D. McGoey: Right. At that time the cul-de-sac would be eliminated. The road would be extended through the properties.

G. Luenzmann: So you are talking about a right-of-way.

D. McGoey: Right now it would only be a paper right-of-way and an offer of dedication if the Town ever wanted to accept the offer of dedication they could.

T. Hamilton: So it would have to be through one of these lots?

G. Luenzmann: It would have to be through two of the lots.

D. McGoey: Lots #5 and lot #6.

V. Werany: It would eliminate the flags and then you would have to have access straight on to the new road.

D. McGoey: It wouldn't eliminate the flags. We would leave the flags for now but those flags would go away at some future date and there would be road there.

G. Luenzmann: It would also dictate how they place the homes.

D. McGoey: That's correct. The setbacks would have to be such that they would be back from what ever that road frontage would be.

G. Lake: Can you send that information back to the applicant?

J. Dillin: The applicant has no objections with that as long as what Dick has said is done by their subdivision to make a complete through road and not just extend a cul-de-sac.

G. Lake: The new applicant.

J. Dillin: The new applicant, if he wants to come and do it he has to put a through street in there and not just use our property to go back and forth.

D. McGoey: Yes.

J. Dillin: If that's a condition, we will do that without a problem.

G. Lake: It makes sense actually.

D. McGoey: There were two more things that Dan Patanaude asked for. The geotextile wasn't shown on the road cross section and you need the bonification through that difficult road section where you grade back to the right-of-way.

J. Dillin: Right.

D. McGoey: Leave the stone walls moved back a one on three slope on the down slope rather than the one on two.

J. Dillin: Okay.

G. Lake: Okay?

J. Dillin: Was there any questions on the thirty foot wide road?

D. McGoey: I prefer the thirty foot wide road with curbing. That's what he shows now. The Highway Superintendent prefers the twenty four plus the three foot shoulders and the three foot swale. That's a call of the Board.

G. Luenzmann: But if it was to be extended then it might . . .

G. Lake: Why don't we come back to that. Let's go to the Public.

B. McDonnell: We're not opposed to the subdivision. What we are concerned about and I brought some pictures. That creek that is on lot #4 goes and surrounds our property. Obviously it floods. Especially with the wetlands on lot #4 if it is developed we will flood.

G. Lake: That creek is out by the road more?

B. McDonnell: Yes.

G. Lake: What else do you have?

B. McDonnell: Was there a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to protect the wetlands?

G. Lake: We will answer that. We like to try to get everything in before we go back and forth.

B. McDonnell: As you can see also their property is much higher so any drainage off of that. We're also concerned, that bridge is in need of repairs. That bridge isn't going to take much more either. We would like to see if at all possible that if they use lot #4 that they cannot put in anything that would affect our land with the water flow. If they want a tennis court out there, we're done for. To be honest with you I don't understand surveys but I don't see that these numbers match up between my survey. They have south and I've got north but they don't match. I don't understand it.

G. Lake: We will have him answer that.

M. McDonnell: On that lot #4, what is the setback on that house? Is it going to be by the cul-de-sac or do they plan on placing it right behind my house near the wetlands? It's kind of important to us.

B. McDonnell: Last but not least Mr. Smith also borders that other property. I know you mentioned the Agricultural Data Statement.

H. Smith: As you can see we also have this bordering on property that we plow up to the border. This, we have problems with some of the lots. They are as small as 1.2 acres right up to where we plow. It's almost impossible to be a good neighbor with such a tight space. I mean, the dust, the dirt, the smell once again it's hard to keep our operation going if we're going to be restricted and if we go to such small lots right against us without leaving a buffer of some sort we are going to be in trouble. The other thing about the Agricultural Data Statement, it's my understanding or at least as done in other towns, a blank statement is sent to farmers that are also impacted and some how the statement is given back after they fill it out to see how the subdivision affects them. I'm not sure that it's strictly for the applicant to send out. That was my understanding.

G. Lake: Again, I don't think we have ever done this before. This is something that we are working on. We are working through it right now. Most of the time we had the applicant bear the expense of sending mailings out and it's there responsibility to bring it back to us.

H. Smith: That's the way it's actually written. If you read all the stuff.

G. Barone: Gary if I may. What Dick had I read through it and finds that the applicant has to mail the statement out to all the farmers within the prescribed radius of the proposed applicant. You being contiguous to the subdivision you would be within that area. I will verify what the form is which can be mailed to you to supply that to the applicant. It will be provided to you and you will send it back with any comments that you have and it will be for this Board to determine whether or not any further action is required based upon what the data is supplied by the applicant.

H. Smith: That's the way I read it and that's apparently the way other towns handle but it was supposed to be done technically before a Public Hearing so that the information was here to have a decision made on which affects both properties.

P. Owen: That makes sense.

Continue