G. Barone: It may make sense but it's not in the section that Dick gave me. It doesn't spell it out.

G. Lake: It's something we've never had to do.

P. Owen: I would kind of like to see that.

G. Lake: I think it's a great idea.

H. Smith: The problem is and it affects both properties. The other one on the other side of the highway and this one. If it's not done ahead of time it's really does no good. It has to be done ahead of time. Every town handles it differently and basically makes their own form. There are basic things that the State says you have to do but then every town makes it's own particular Agricultural Data Statement that they work with or what they feel they want to work with. It's in the same interest other towns leave buffers when there is an active farm because they know there will be problems down the line. Whether the buffer is trees, whether it's just area that is never put to buildings of any kind. I have a swimming pool at my house. The dust from the fields drives the filters nuts. When we start having houses and we're talking 1.2 acres and then I got nervous that possibly some of these lots could be subdivided later.

G. Lake: No.

H. Smith: Okay. I thought there was a notation on one lot that you couldn't subdivide it further so I thought maybe that pertained to some other lots.

G. Lake: I'm sure the size of these lots are being done by the soils formula.

H. Smith: Correct.

G. Lake: I'm sure this is what he can get and that's it.

H. Smith: Well, I thought the original one on the top of the hill was three acres and I know that the soil is very nice up there from the original ones I saw. I didn't look at a current one.

V. Werany: That's the reason why I wanted a rider put on that deed that it not be subdivided. That's the only one and it's at the bottom of a down slope.

H. Smith: On the three acre lot I'm not concerned about a neighbor because everyone can plan together but if the three acre lot can be subdivided further because it is one acre zoning then my problem is compounded and that's why I'm coming before you.

G. Lake: I am missing one thing about why you feel you have a problem. Yes, I understand what you are telling me about the dust and what I said on the first applicant that we are going to enforce this even though it's new and we're trying to catch up compared to what other towns are doing. In no way will we ever expect you and the reason we have these notes put on these lots is to avoid trouble down the road saying they didn't know you were there farming.

H. Smith: I understand that but if you make the lots too small they can't really leave you any room. In other words, out of 1.2 acre lot by the time you have frontage and the house there's going to be structures so close that it's going to be impossible to be a good neighbor. That's what we are saying.

G. Lake: Okay.

H. Smith: Again, like I said in Walden, that Board leaves up to a two hundred foot buffer. I'm just asking for some sort of a buffer. I'm not asking for two hundred feet but either we need trees or we need something.

G. Lake: Okay.

H. Smith: It's just not going to work out. The same thing as far as disclosure goes and the other problem I do have is running a cul-de-sac there. If you go on VanAmburgh road, that road shouldn't be a cul-de-sac. It needs access in the future because site distances are terrible. If anybody else tries to develop it's going to be impossible. Even our property, it's Neighborhood Commercial in the frontage but once we get back there there's really no access to our RA at some point if there is no access. VanAmburgh Road is a twisty road and that road needs to be thought through before it's just put in there as a cul-de-sac.

G. Lake: I think our Engineer will address that.

MOTION to close the PUBLIC HEARING at 8:08 P.M. made by V. Werany and seconded by T. Hamilton.

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

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

G. Lake: Dick's comments. Let's talk about them first and then we will talk about the others.

D. McGoey: Item #1 is the question on the paper street to provide access to the adjoining land and an additional right-of-way out to VanAmburgh Road I think you indicated that wouldn't be a problem.

J. Dillin: That's not a problem as long as when it is extended it goes back out towards VanAmburgh Road.

D. McGoey: I recommended restriction of further subdivision on lot #4. Do you have any problem with that?

J. Dillin: No. We agree to that.

G. Lake: Victor, didn't you have one that you wanted?

V. Werany: That was the one.

D. McGoey: I suggested that the lots that are wooded that there be a restriction on cutting trees unnecessarily and that we show that the bearing limit lines to protect those lots from the adjoining property. There are some lots that do some trees on and I know a lot of it is meadow but there are some trees.

J. Dillin: That's no problem.

G. Lake: You're saving as many trees as possible.

J. Dillin: There is a large wetland space that we had flagged that is all wooded and we will put on about protecting that also.

G. Lake: How about the other lots?

J. Dillin: Where ever there are trees and we don't need to take them out we will put a note on to preserve them.

D. McGoey: Item #4, do you have a problem with that?

J. Dillin: No.

D. McGoey: Item #5 the Board wanted to talk about the road. Do we want thirty foot curbs or do we want the twenty four foot pavement with three foot paved shoulders?

P. Owen: I've got a thing on that. I don't really care for curbs out in an area like this. I would rather have the shoulders there. I don't think curbs go with the character of the neighborhood.

G. Lake: But you do agree to keep it up to the thirty feet?

P. Owen: Yes. Twenty four, three and three is the way to go.

G. Luenzmann: If they extended that road in the future to connect to VanAmburgh would that dictate curbs?

D. McGoey: I think we would stay with the same type of road all the way through.

G. Lake: That or we would re-visit it depending on what was out there at the time.

D. McGoey: That would be hard to require curbs on the older section. Let the Town put them in.

G. Luenzmann: In other words, it wouldn't make any difference.

D. McGoey: No. I'm saying if you wanted curbs at a future date if there was a larger subdivision proposed, the Town would end up paving the curb on this section of the road if they weren't installed as part of this project.

G. Luenzmann: Would it ever happen that they would put curbs on the new section?

D. McGoey: That would be up to the Board at the time.

G. Luenzmann: We would have to come up with a policy.

G. Lake: The problem and I talked to Mr. Patanaude quite a bit about this. We go back and forth. He prefers not to have the curbs out there. He prefers having the twenty four with three and three. On the larger subdivisions I think curbs are fine. I can live either way myself. That's Mr. Patanaude's opinion.

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Nothing.

G. Lake: What direction do you want to go on this?

V. Werany: I like the idea of the thirty foot without curbs.

A. Dulgarian: I like curbs.

P. Owen: I like the twenty four with three and three.

G. Luenzmann: I could go either way. Actually being that it's a very rural area, it would seem to be twenty four, three and three would be more appropriate rather than curbs.

T. Hamilton: No need for curbs.

G. Lake: I kind of feel that way out there.

D. McGoey: Are the other issues okay?

J. Dillin: Yes.

V. Werany: If you are going to plan on a right-of-way here would the proposed road have to be reconfigured to straight it out or is it going to be a wavy road.

D. McGoey: They can put a turn in the road through the cul-de-sac.

G. Luenzmann: Lot #4 is going to have a note for no further subdivision. How about lot #9?
Is that planned for more subdivision or is that good the way it is there?

J. Dillin: It's not scheduled for a further subdivision. It can be subdivided. It meets the soil formula. It's just not being subdivided. It's a high bank right by the road.

G. Luenzmann: Is there any need to put down a note no further subdivision on lot #9 because if they come back later and want to do it?

D. McGoey: If that can be a conforming lot it would be pretty tough to say no. What the Board has done in the past, the policy has been if you've got the long narrow lots, those are the ones that you restrict no further subdivision. When the length to width ratio is greater than three.

G. Luenzmann: I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of farmers that are out there. We don't have a policy.

G. Lake: Gerry, are you looking to have a note put on lot #3?

G. Luenzmann: I'm just looking as to whether lot #9, whether it's a good idea or not.

J. Dillin: Lot #9 could be subdivided into two lots. I think the applicant wanted to leave a bigger lot. He didn't want to do the maximum amount of lots. Our house on that big lot is almost the same distance away as the lot #8.

T. Hamilton: I think what Gary asked for was having these notes on the different lots stating that they are surrounded by farming businesses, that they are aware of the problems before they buy that lot. By putting that note on each individual lot is what we are asking for.

G. Lake: That's right.

G. Luenzmann: That probably is going to be the guiding principle then.

G. Lake: Dick, are there any other comments?

D. McGoey: The other issue has to do with the flooding problem on the adjoining lot. I think that is a legitimate concern. I'm really going to have to take a look at that.

G. Lake: Okay.

D. McGoey: I was not aware of that flooding problem. I've been out there but of course it was dry.

G. Lake: Do you think we should hold up on Preliminary?

D. McGoey: Yes. It would give us a chance to get these forms out also.

J. Dillin: As far as the flooding issue, I don't think it's any secret. This flood zone comes right up to the back of our property when we can show. It's on the record and that's what the elevations were. We're proposing to do really nothing. The closest thing we are going to do is a septic system right here. Nothing back in here to change any of that. That's all Federal Wetlands and it's been flagged and designated as such. The drainage that will be generated is very little. The high point of the road is right here. The cul-de-sac is going to join in this way into the white area. The majority of the road is going to be coming forward and coming down a ditch along VanAmburgh Road and cross over to here. There is virtually no increase. I have a drainage report for you.

A. Dulgarian: That stream flows where?

J. Dillin: South.

A. Dulgarian: It cuts across.

TABLED.

3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 P.M. - STONE RIDGE ESTATES - 26 LOT SUBDIVISION - Lybolt Road (19-1-5.23) #021-001

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 8:20 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 Horizon View Realty LLC, 58 Murray Avenue, Goshen, New York 10924 for approval of Stone Ridge Estates Subdivision , located on Lybolt Road near its intersection with Scotchtown Collabar Road under Section 249-39 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

L. Potter: I'm with the firm Lanc & Tully Engineering and I'm representing Horizon View Realty. We're proposing a twenty six lot residential subdivision in the Rural Agricultural district on Lybolt Road. The total property is 84.8 acres. The parcels range from approximately 1.5 to seven and a half acres with the average being three and a half acres. There will be actually one road going in off of Lybolt with another cul-de-sac coming off of that road. Road AA@ is approximately twenty four hundred eighty feet and Road AB@ is approximately eleven hundred feet. This will be individual septic and wells.

G. Lake: Before I go to the Public, the comment list. Is this from the work session and have mostly been addressed?

L. Potter: These are all comments that I received after the work session.

V. Werany: I think I will wait.

A. Dulgarian: Same.

P. Owen: Same.

G. Luenzmann: Wait.

T. Hamilton: The only thing is back to these comments again. I see the first one was October 8th. There was a revision November 16th. A revision December 28th and yet we still have twenty items left on here. We shouldn't have this many items on here when it comes to this point of Public Hearing.

L. Potter: We did not have all those comments previously. This was after Mr. McGoey's Preliminary review.

G. Lake: I will go to the Public now.

M. Leiter: Myself and other surrounding neighbors are concerned regarding the water table. There have been several articles in the paper regarding the water levels being very low. By putting twenty six more wells in the surrounding area would be taking a lot of water out of the available water. We were wondering if that issue was considered.

G. Lake: Thank you.

P. Cullen: I am near this subdivision here. The back of my property sits on the wetlands. I have a portion of the wetlands. I believe it's 19-1-48. My main concern basically is that the wetlands be preserved. I don't want trees put on them. I just want these things preserved the way they are.

G. Lake: There's very strict rules as far as the State and Federal wetlands go. You just don't walk on something. There's a line usually drawn where no buildings or anything is allowed on it.

P. Cullen: I have no problems with the subdivision at all. I have a sufficient buffer zone but if there is anything going to be done to these wetlands I definitely want to be notified.

G. Lake: They will answer that.

V. Werany: You have a home and not a farm I take it?

P. Cullen: Yes, I have a home on 8.8 acres at 435 Scotchtown Collabar Road.

V. Werany: Do you farm on it?

P. Cullen: No I don't.

V. Werany: So, it wouldn't have any effect like we did previously?

P. Cullen: No.

E. Fogarty: I have about one hundred forty one acres that abuts this property where the road goes in and the whole thing will be built right behind my farm. We do operate the farm. I am no longer in the Agricultural District because we didn't qualify for the gross amount that we should be earning but we still have to keep our fields cleared and we do cut our hay and we trim the trees and do things like that. I don't know, looking at this, it doesn't look like anything is going to be that close to where we will be cutting but I just want to make sure that the drainage and so forth isn't going to be coming down on my land.

G. Lake: Our Engineer will check that.

E. Fogarty: The other thing is I have two acre lake on the property. I don't know how close that would come to that. I will have to check it but that's a stream fed lake and I don't want anything coming into that to change the water in any way. I'm not opposing the project. The farm land is disappearing. With the high taxes in the area, school taxes, I will probably have to be before you next.

H. Ross: Very quickly, I know there's a lot of questions about this project. As a resident and a neighbor of the project I think that, and I'm not an expert, a good land use given certain considerations. That's what I wanted to speak to you about tonight. Some are directed to this project and some are a little broader but I will be very quick. If we can begin with a buffer line of trees that will grow and mature properly spaced parallel to your entry road AA@ at the backside of these lots connecting across the open space to the edge of the floody woods that protect visual quality along County Road 47, Scotchtown Collabar Road. I'm not opposed to the development. I think that if we can begin by including a buffer at the start of the project. More importantly however having heard the questions you raised about the first applicant's Public Hearing tonight I don't know whether this is opened for purview for Agricultural impact or not. However, there is hay being taken on that land and there are working horse farms and whether or not they are in the Agricultural District. We should be doing an assessment on all these properties that abut the area in the RA. It's new. The third thing is connected to the second. I think it is incumbent on this Board to advise the Town Board in matters like this and we will be seeing a lot more of them. This is what is happening to agricultural land. Nobody knows what the build out in the Town of Wallkill is going to look like. Nobody has done the math. Nobody has examined or done the multiplication or figured the water table reductions and all the rest. You guys are the Planning Board and if nobody else is going to do it then I think you will have to be on record telling the Town Board.

MOTION to close the PUBLIC HEARING at 8:32 P.M. made by V. Werany and seconded by A. Dulgarian.

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

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

G. Lake: Dick, before I go back to the Board, the comments we have twenty of them here.

D. McGoey: Right.

G. Lake: Are they engineering. I know Mr. Patanaude and I talked today about the road ten percent.

D. McGoey: There's a grade problem that has to be straightened out.

L. Potter: We will be taking care of that.

D. McGoey: There are a lot of issues. If you want to defer action on the Preliminary, I would agree with that. The last seven maps that I saw before this were Sketch Plans, not Preliminary plans. These are supposedly in Preliminary form and I performed a Preliminary review on them.

G. Lake: The water table, I don't know what information you have on that.

L. Potter: This subdivision will be going to the Orange County Health Department for their review and approval. Orange County now is requiring test wells on subdivisions and a number of test wells are subject to a percentage of the size of the subdivision. When this goes to the Health Department for review wherever the County chooses for us to put wells that will be done.

G. Lake: And then they . . .

L. Potter: Follow up with testing. There will be testing done.

G. Lake: Okay. The wetland issue.

L. Potter: That's really a non-issue. We're not doing anything within the wetlands. The only wetland we're involved is we are under one tenth of an acre which is permitted. That is the only wetland we are touching.

G. Lake: Did you hear that?

P. Cullen: Yes. That's fine with me.

L. Potter: In regard to Mr. McGoey's comments we believe most of them are technical issues and fairly minor in nature. We're not adverse to agreeing with most of these. Several of them we have a couple of questions. I know you have seen some of these comments before however they have been addressed on the plans. In regard to front yard setbacks the lots that are listed, we're really restraint where the septic systems are. We've done extensive soil testing out there and the septic systems are located in those areas that would permit the sewage disposal system. Therefore, separation distances between the septic system and the grade itself is why some of these houses are where they are. We will take a little closer look at some of those. I have a question in regard to street lighting. I came by that way tonight. I came all the way from Route 17K all the way through. There are no street lights in any subdivisions or on any of the roads out in that area until you get to Scotchtown. Now, would people in that area find that not very nice to have street lights out there when it is a rural district.

D. McGoey: My proposal for street lights is for safety reasons at the intersections, not street lights every fifteen or one hundred feet. The intersection with Lybolt, the intersection with the cul-de-sac road and the other intersections. I don't that at all would be objectionable.

L. Potter: The only reason I'm asking is the project is up on a hill and that's what people are going to see at night.

G. Lake: Let me tell you. We do have a couple things and I do know you want to get to the Health Department.

L. Potter: Right.

G. Lake: I do realize that. The fact is I would like personally to see that ten percent grade on that hill. You say you are going to fix it.

L. Potter: We are.

G. Lake: A ten percent grade is like the monkey farm hill. It's pretty substantial. I'm only saying this to let you know what to compare it with. The other question Mr. Ross did bring up some screening along here. Even if you save some trees.

L. Potter: None of these trees are coming down. The only trees that would be coming down at all is in certain areas.

G. Lake: I'm saying just to keep the neighborhood happy.

Continued