TOWN
OF WALLKILL PLANNING BOARD
SPECIAL
MEETING
FEBRUARY
12, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, R. Carr, T. Hamilton,
G. Monaco, G. Luenzmann
MEMBERS
ABSENT: P. Owen
OTHERS
PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey
1. WAL-MART DISTRIBUTION CENTER - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Route 17/Route 17K (1-1-66, 67, 44.1, 2.2.222) #057-002
N.
Madden: Thank you for allowing us to have a Special Meeting with
you. We have a brief slide presentation. We are hopeful that the
Board is so inclined to accept the Final Environmental Impact
Statement at the conclusion of the meeting. That’s our request.
R.
Burns: In the Final Environmental Impact Statement we have responded
to all the comments from the Department of Environmental Conservation
in detail. Mr. Burns presented the slide presentation.
T.
Hamilton: Where was that subdivision lilne at where you were looking
to subdivide a piece off?
R.
Burns: I believe the subdivision line pretty much goes around
the footprint of the building. It’s a technical subdivision
and in order to dictate the Empire Zone.
T.
Hamilton: It’s not technical with us because it is before
us for a regular subdivision.
D.
McGoey: No it’s not Mr. Hamilton. I’ve been told the
building footprint would be only for the Empire Zone taxing issues
only. It will not be a filed subdivision with the County Clerk’s
Office.
T.
Hamilton: Then it’s not coming for the subdivision?
D.
McGoey: No.
T. Hamilton: Okay, because it was before.
D.
McGoey: It’s being shown on there as a parcel but it’s
not for filing purposes. In other words they can’t sell
that parcel.
R.
Burns: Continued with slide presentation.
T.
Hamilton: That moisture and water that is there now that’s
shown in that wet area right where the driveways are coming through.
Where’s that coming from and what’s going to happen
to it when you fill it in? It’s wet for a reason. Where
is it coming from?
R.
Burns: We are discharging the runoff as they were previously.
So if water was being discharged now through the wetlands area,
it will be discharged after development to those same areas.
T.
Hamilton: So, it gets down where the driveways are coming in?
The lower section close to the road. How are you going to get
that over to the other side? It’s there for a reason.
R.
Burns: There are not jurisdictional wetlands. Those are low lying
areas and are isolated.
T.
Hamilton: Yes, but that water came from somewhere. How are you
re-directing that to another point?
R.
Burns: The water that’s there now presently is surface water
that drains into the low lying area.
T.
Hamilton: Are you going to re-direct it?
R.
Burns: Any water that comes into that area will be picked up and
conveyed to further detention basins.
T.
Hamilton: Okay.
T.
Johnson: I am the Traffic Engineer for this project. I’m
just going to go through a couple of slides regarding the revised
traffic study for this project. We met with the Department of
Transportation earlier today. They gave us verbal comments on
our study. We find that we can obtain a level of service “D”
or better for all the intersections, for all the peak hours. The
one exception to that is with the employee driveway where we result
to a low service “E”. Where “D” is typically
considered the minimum acceptable, “E” is not an unusual
condition for an un-signalized intersection. I do want to point
out that it is a lower service “E” by two tenths of
a second. We feel there is no additional improvement needed to
mitigate that two tenths of a second to bring it to a level of
service “D”. We recommend an installation of a traffic
signal at the southbound ramps. The installation of another traffic
signal at the northbound ramps and as before we still recommend
widening Route 17 for a center turn lane into each of the truck
access and for the access driveway. The last recommendation we
have is to again install an intersection warning sign for driveway
“E” because of the restricted site distance. Getting
back to our meeting with the Department of Transportation this
afternoon they concur with each one of our recommended improvements.
The one issue that they do have is in regard to our last recommendation
for the intersection warning sign. They do not feel that it is
sufficient enough mitigation for that driveway because we have
restricted site distance. The amount of site distance that we
have measured for that is four hundred sixty five feet. The minimum
acceptable that the Department of Transportation wants to see
with the stopping site distance for sixty miles per hour road
is five hundred twenty five feet. They want us to provide at least
that five hundred twenty five feet and the applicant has agreed
to work with the Department of Transportation to obtain that five
hundred twenty five feet either by making some adjustments to
the road to improve the site distance or actually moving driveway
“B” further west or east or what ever we can to get
that distance that they want. I do want to finish by addressing
comments from the Board at our last meeting regarding the need
for acceleration and deceleration lanes out here. Deceleration
and acceleration lanes are also known as speed change lanes. We
are going to provide the speed change lane in the eastbound direction
which is in the form of that center turn lane that I just talked
about. When people are slowing down to enter this site they will
do so in this left turn lane, not in the through lane. As far
as speed change lanes needed anywhere else, they are not needed
anywhere else. Coming out of the truck access driveway, all trucks
are going to be heading westbound to head toward the interstate.
Coming out of that truck access, Route 17, there is a down grade
so that will help trucks accelerate out of that driveway when
they do turn out and also if you do introduce an acceleration
lane in that area you are going to introduce a major traffic conflict
and a safety problem where you will have trucks on the outside
lane wanting to go straight through and pass the northbound ramp
to get to the southbound ramp because ninety percent of the trucks
wants to go south. What you will have is a situation where you
have trucks on the outside lane going straight through along with
cars and vehicles who want to turn right at the northbound ramps.
It is a safety issue right there.
R.
Carr: How far is this from the truck driveway again to the northbound?
T. Johnson: Six hundred feet. They also agreed with that and with
that conflict we discussed that with them earlier today and they
also said that it is such a short distance they could get a workable
acceleration lane in there anyway. There was also a comment whether
or not acceleration/deceleration should be provided on the ramps.
The grades on the ramps are below the maximum thresholds that
you would provide the ramps for based on the guide lines. Again
providing acceleration/deceleration lanes are not needed at the
ramps. They did concur with us today on that.
T.
Hamilton: Can we get some kind of paper work saying that they
concur or disagree?
T.
Johnson: Yes.
D.
McGoey: I was at that meeting and they were slightly adamant about
it.
G.
Monaco: You were talking about the level of service earlier between
D & E, can you explain the difference between D & E being
two tenths of a second. I assume there are other levels of service.
T.
Johnson: Yes.
G.
Monaco: What are the variables?
T.
Johnson: You are looking for the actual?
G.
Monaco: Yes.
T.
Johnson: The variables differ between if they are un-signalized
intersection or a signalized intersection. I assume you’re
talking about driveway “B”?
G.
Monaco: Yes.
T.
Johnson: That’s an un-signalized intersection. A level of
service A up to ten seconds, B you would have between ten and
fifteen seconds, C is fifteen to twenty five seconds, D is twenty
five to thirty seconds and then E goes from thirty five up to
fifty seconds. So, we are on that borderline of D.
G.
Lake: D is strictly in the interest of that with all the trucks.
T. Johnson: That’s correct.
G.
Luenzmann: I just need Dick to help me out a bit. The last time
we saw this several of us had concerns about the project on Route
17K. It sounds like they have not addressed it. Is that true?
D.
McGoey: That’s true.
G.
Luenzmann: They’ve added that center lane.
D.
McGoey: Right.
G.
Luenzmann: And they’ve added those stop lights.
D.
McGoey: Correct.
G.
Luenzmann: It appears it looks like they have solved the problem.
D.
McGoey: Right.
G.
Luenzmann: So they only have the one lane that’s going to
be used going west.
D.
McGoey: Correct.
G.
Lake: You think that is okay?
D.
McGoey: That’s fine.
G.
Lake: It is also a State road so they would have to sign off on
it. I will go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: Nothing at this time.
R.
Carr: I thought this was very clear and addressed all of the comments.
Traffic, I really thought we needed a deceleration lane but I
can see that you have six hundred feet. The lighting, Dick, are
you satisfied with that?
D.
McGoey: I think they have mitigated it enough. I don’t think
that they have the glare that
people in Sullivan County are going to have to deal with. Shading
the lights directly down into the parking lot and they have reduced
the foot candles in some areas from fifteen to ten.
R.
Carr: I just thought that the ground water contamination they
said it is contained. There is not a full analysis of it. My only
comment would be really if the Town would have a liability in
the event the wells are contaminated. Overall they did a great
job on the storm water which we were all concerned with. It looks
great. I think it’s a great project and you’ve done
a great job.
G.
Luenzmann: I just have a question and I brought it up the last
time about the contamination that Mr. Carr just mentioned. It’s
there from a previous use and how is that going to get cleaned
up?
D.
McGoey: I’m going to ask. The Planning Board received a
letter by E-Mail dated February 10, 2003 which the applicant hasn’t
responded to yet. I think it has to be responded to in the record
and it may answer your question about whether it gets cleaned
up or it doesn’t get cleaned up.
G.
Luenzmann: So, it’s unresolved at this point?
D.
McGoey: It is unresolved. It’s not going to affect the project.
It’s not going to affect the Town’s wells.
G.
Luenzmann: What about the runoff? Is that going to pick up some
of this stuff and take it in?
D.
McGoey: No. It’s not in danger of contaminating the ground
water as far as I know.
N.
Madden: It’s kind of like with the highway. Department of
Environmental Conservation is the agency with jurisdiction over
contamination issues. We’re awaiting for their advice.
G.
Lake: When did we get the letter Dick?
D.
McGoey: February 10th.
G.
Lake: Do they have it now?
D.
McGoey: Yes. They have a copy.
G. Corso: We just got that. All the reports on the contamination
have been forwarded to the Department of Environmental Conservation
as part of Impact Statement but also we went one step further
and submitted it to re-mediation ground for the region directly.
They’re general concerns is that there is nothing there
that indicates a true level that will substantiate remedial efforts.
That condition is there and we are waiting for their formal concurrence.
We think that will happen in the near future what their indications
are.
G.
Luenzmann: If you had to re-mediate it, what would be the normal
way of doing it?
G.
Corso: For something like that, if anything, removal of the soil
in that area and even if you removed it you could get as simple
as an aeration on site.
G.
Monaco: Aeration for heavy metals. You have arsenic that’s
five times the levels, chromium six times, lead twelve times,
mercury twice as high, iron 1,600 times accepted levels.
G.
Corso: Those are levels from the groundwater.
G.
Monaco: They exceed.
G.
Corso: I believe they are the results from the groundwater samples.
G.
Monaco: It would have an affect on the aquifer.
G.
Corso: We followed up and did purge testing and those samples
were not that high.
G.
Monaco: What were the levels after the purge?
G.
Corso: I can pull them out. They are in the document. The levels
were substantially less than that.
G.
Luenzmann: It sounds like, Dick, from what you said, the Department
of Environmental Conservation is not concerned about it, correct?
D.
McGoey: That’s correct.
G.
Luenzmann: If they become concerned about it then it can be corrected
after the site.
D. McGoey: If they do have to re-mediate it.
G.
Monaco: Since these levels are above their standards, I can’t
see how they can find it in compliance after exceeding the standards.
D.
McGoey: I think they have to look at the site as a whole. That
was in an isolated location. It may be just a pocket of contamination.
It just may not be a concern.
G.
Monaco: It has a direct correlation to the groundwater and aquifer.
G.
Lake: Would the Department of Environmental Conservation take
charge of this?
D.
McGoey: Yes.
G.
Lake: They would make the determination?
D.
McGoey: Yes.
G.
Monaco: The body doesn’t get rid of or reject heavy metals.
I have a problem with that since we also have a housing development
just down the road from there. That’s a real concern to
me and I would like to see something done to re-mediate that.
D.
McGoey: We will discuss it with the Department of Environmental
Conservation after we get their answers back. Our hydro-geologist
looked at it. He has a major concern because we’re going
to have at least three wells on the site.
G.
Luenzmann: Right now it is in the wetland area.
R.
Burns: I don’t believe so. There are wetlands but it’s
not very far away from it.
G.
Luenzmann: I can probably understand the previous owner dumped
something in that same spot. It’s a problem. So, if the
Department of Environmental Conservation is not concerned about
it, it’s fine. If later on they become concerned about it
we want it corrected.
G.
Monaco: It is my concern about it possibly leaching out.
Continue
