TOWN OF WALLKILL
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian,
T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann, G. Monaco, P. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey
1. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. - SCOTCH VALLEY - 44 LOT SUBDIVISION
- Silver Lake Scotchtown Road (99-1-1 thru 56) #006-003
G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:30 P.M. M. Hunt read
the PUBLIC HEARING notice.
M. Hunt: 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 18th day of February, 2004 at 7:30 P.M.
or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on
the application of Scotch Valley Subdivision for approval of
a forty four lot subdivision which conforms to the current
R-1 Zoning District, located on Silver Lake Scotchtown Road
under Section 249-22 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: Can you bring us up to date and then we will go to
the Public.
L.
Potter: I'm with Lanc & Tully. This
is a forty four lot residential subdivision located on the
Westerly side of
Silver Lake Scotchtown Road at the intersection of Route 17
on 31.5 acres. We're proposing, the homes will be served by
municipal water and sewer. We have a road proposed with all
of the lots on that loop road. There are wetlands on the property.
The disturbance will be kept to a minimum.
G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A. Dulgarian: Nothing at this time.
P. Owen: I will wait.
R. Carr: I will wait also.
G. Luenzmann: Nothing at this time.
G. Monaco: Nothing right now.
T. Hamilton: After the Public.
G. Lake: Is there anyone from the Public who wishes to comment
on this application? Hearing none . . .
MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING made by G. Luenzmann and
seconded by G. Monaco.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
T. Hamilton: Aye
G. Monaco: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES
G. Lake: Dick's comments. Have you handled those?
L. Potter: We just received those comments on Friday and Mr.
McGoey was unavailable.
G. Lake: Dick, your comments? I know this has been a short
week on everybody. Do you want to go down through them then
and then maybe we can just get comments from both at this time
and then we can make a decision.
L. Potter: Item #1. The wetlands delineation has been approved.
At this time, we're waiting for the JV Letter. The area of
the wetlands was larger than anticipated and, therefore,
the applicant has reduced the number of lots from forty seven
to forty four. Item #2. The width of the lots in many areas
has been reduced. The lots were previously in the ninety
to one hundred foot range and are now in the eighty to eighty
five range.
A. Lipman: Do you want to review them as we go through them?
G. Lake: I'm listening to see if Mr. McGoey has anything additional
and then I will go back to the Board.
L. Potter: Item #3. As the result of the wetlands, lot #1
is an odd configuration and has very little build-able area.
We would recommend that if this lot is to be approved that
there be a restriction that there will be no further subdivision
of this lot, which we would agree to. Item #4. Other lots have
very restricted areas as a result of the wetlands including
lot #22 and lot #23. Item #5. The stormwater management pond
seriously restricts the development of lot #44. Item #6. The
applicant should identify whether wetlands mitigation is being
proposed as a result of the construction of the roadway, and
if so, where this mitigation is proposed. The mitigation was
outlined on one of the ERA forms.
D. McGoey: Back of what?
L. Potter: It's on the back of a number of lots. I can show
you where. It would be through here and then here.
D. McGoey: Are there details of that mitigation?
L. Potter: Not at this time. Mr. Thorgensen is meeting with
Brian on that.
D. McGoey: Okay. Item #2, you know what the Board's feeling
is now on lot widths. I mean, we've been trying to get wider
lots and we had this project to a point where we had almost
one hundred foot lots. It's palatable with the circumstance
now because of the wetlands that they found they're reducing
the lot width to try to achieve their lot counts.
A. Dulgarian: Yes, but the lot count is not, I mean that's
a self inflicted hardship. That's not something we have to
agree to.
G. Lake: Right, you're right. It started out at fifty something
and then the wetlands and now they're down to forty four from
forty seven.
T. Hamilton: Looking between lots #38, #39, #40, #41, #42,
and #43 it says thirty, thirty and thirty feet. That's ridiculous.
They could have broken it up into larger lots. That's four
flag lots.
D. McGoey: Well, in their defense they had proposed a cul-de-sac
in there at one point and the Board felt that rather than have
a short section of Town road that the Town would have to maintain
that they could do these flag lots.
A. Dulgarian: How long ago was that? Was that very early on?
A. Lipman: No. Only about four months ago.
A. Dulgarian: Was that at a work session?
A. Lipman: No, right here.
R. Carr: I remember the last time. I did have a problem with
these flag lots. It's just jamming the houses in there, the
front yards are facing the backyards. I have no problems generally
with flag lots but when the houses are this close and the front
of this house is in someone's backyard and the backyard is
in the front. It's just really tight for three flag lots like
that all stuck together. To add to that the predominant feature
where the entrance is for this development are all stormwater
catch basins. I don't know . . .
L. Potter: Not really. If I could point out on the map, there
is stormwater management in here. Went to map and explained
to the Board.
A. Lipman: This isn't any kind of formal approval. I recall
vividly and I was here when the issue of eliminating the cul-de-sac
was discussed and it was the consensus of the Board that we
do exactly what we're showing now. I'm not about to say that
you were in favor but I know the consensus was.
T. Hamilton: Yes, but the consensus, did it show us this design
that we have in front of us, thirty, thirty, and thirty?
A. Lipman: Yes. You had alternate designs one showing the
cul-de-sac and one showing exactly what is there.
G. Lake: Mr. Hamilton: While you're looking at the map from
Mr. McGoey, let me go to Mr. Dulgarian.
A. Dulgarian: I'm not thrilled with, did we close the Public
Hearing, or what did we do?
G. Lake: We closed the Public Hearing.
A. Dulgarian: I'm not thrilled with the layout. I know we've
seen this before. They've scrunched it up a little bit more
though. I kind of agree with Mr. Carr but for different reasons
on the flag lots. I am not a supporter of flag lots. Sometimes
when there are pre-existing conditions you need to do that
but when you start with a fresh sheet of paper and you're doing
a planned community, I don't think you can hold us hostage
because you want to put as many houses as you want into this
property. It either works or it doesn't work and in this case,
for me, it doesn't work. I don't like what I'm looking at here.
I think it can be done with some modifications but I don't
like exactly what I'm looking at. Dick, is the site distance
for the prevailing speed okay at four hundred and fifty?
D. McGoey: I don't know the answer to that at this time. That
will be a question they will have to verify.
A. Dulgarian: The other thing I want to know is along the
road is that wetlands along Silver Lake Scotchtown Road?
D. McGoey: I don't think it's actually in the wetlands. The
wetlands start here.
A. Dulgarian: Okay, so it appears it's not in the wetlands.
Mr. Lake, please come back to me.
P. Owen: I agree with Mr. Dulgarian and Mr. Carr on this configuration
of those lots #40, #41, #42. I just think that it could be
done in a better way from this plan. The way they come back,
lot #40 is right in the back of lot #38 and #39.
R. Carr: I have nothing else other than I would like to see
more detail on the landscaping.
G. Luenzmann: I remember this project when they had not delineated
all of this as wetlands or houses there from a previous developer
and how because that was delineated as wetlands everything
got squeezed back up in the hill. I remember the discussion
we had on the cul-de-sac and, yes we did say you could eliminate
the cul-de-sac and put the flag lots in because it would
be less of a problem for the Town. The Town would prefer
it that way. I think we did make comments about, this is
the old map that we gave Preliminary on the Sketch Plan but
we did make some comments about the very small lots. You're
scrunching it in and right on the edge and I think that you
have gone over the edge right here with making these lots
smaller and it just tilted the whole development into too
much high density, lots too small, in my opinion. I understand
the wetland problem and you're trying to squeeze in a certain
amount of lots but the wetlands are bigger than you thought
they were. I think it's a much better plan if you made these
lots no smaller than what they were before. Even then, that
was at Sketch Plan. I have no problems myself with these
flag lots. I understand that it is to the Town's benefit
not to have a cul-de-sac and I can also understand the concerns
some of the other Board members have with this. My concern
is the overall picture of this development right now is too
many houses in a very small space and it's just tilted over
the edge.
A. Lipman: That seems to be a comment that everybody is addressing.
G. Lake: Please let me finish with the Board and then we can
discuss where we're going to go.
G. Monaco: I would like to see larger lot sizes. The house
configurations in the cul-de-sac area and looking at this map,
I kind of agree that this doesn't work with having houses that
are facing the rear of another house. Something should be done
to spruce that up.
T. Hamilton: Dick, this sketch?
D. McGoey: Right.
T. Hamilton: The drainage on the sketch but it seems that
the marked lines cover up all the footages. We have no idea
what the widths are looking at this. If you count your lots
all of a sudden there's an extra lot on that road and now we
find out that there are drives going in at thirty feet, thirty
feet, and thirty feet. You can't tell that from here. Every
dimension that was up along this line where those other existing
lots are, is covered up by the marking pen. I don't know what
sizes they are, plus there's one more on here, a new one, than
what was on here before.
L. Potter: No.
T. Hamilton: Well, you're talking about along here but instead
of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven you count there
you have eight going to the corner. Everything is shortened
up which we didn't know about.
D. McGoey: That's when they went to the eighty foot lot width
rather than the one hundred lot width.
T. Hamilton: Why? There is no wetland there. In this spot,
there are no wetlands. Why make them smaller? I disagree.
G. Lake: Mr. McGoey, is this map yours?
D. McGoey: Yes.
A. Lipman: I'm perplexed. I read the regulations and the minimum
required width is eighty feet for this district and this use.
T. Hamilton: It says minimum. There's nothing saying we can't
ask for larger.
G. Lake: I think what you need to realize what is throwing
the Board off a little bit is we have been, not only here but
across the entire Town been trying to up the minimums, we have
been leaning and we've been asking to go up to ninety to one
hundred.
A. Lipman: We tried to accommodate that request. When this
had been approved it was approved at that time for fifty six
lots and the wetlands were not as severe or large than they
are right now. We've cut back from fifty six to forty four
lots. That's a lose of twelve lots. I'm not blaming you for
the increase in the size of the wetlands. When we came here
initially we tried to handle this as an amendment to that earlier
plan hopefully to get some expediting which we couldn't accomplish
as a matter of law. We had to go through the whole project.
G. Lake: Right.
A. Lipman: This project will not stand the cost of losing
additional lots. We have to build a water line to extend across
Route 17. I don't know how many miles but it's . . .
L. Potter: It's over fourteen hundred feet.
A. Lipman: It's expensive. It has to be covered by what comes
out of the development. We can't deliver one hundred foot lots
in this project.
G. Lake: Mr. Dulgarian asked me to come back to him.
A. Dulgarian: Yes. Where are the sidewalks on this plan?
L. Potter: Showed Mr. Dulgarian.
A. Dulgarian: What about along Silver Lake Scotchtown Road?
L. Potter: Nothing.
A. Dulgarian: How far is this from Tower Drive? It's not far,
is it?
D. McGoey: It's right across the street.
A. Dulgarian: I would love to get sidewalks out there. Here,
we're putting in a forty four unit community and we're not
far from Stewart's, Hannaford, the bank and all that stuff
that these residents could walk to, that's part of the community.
G. Lake: Right.
A. Dulgarian: And, they're not that far away and I know down
Tower there are sidewalks.
G. Lake: Right. I know we have been asking for sidewalks up
and down Silver Lake Scotchtown Road as of late.
A. Dulgarian: I would lean towards a sidewalk along Silver
Lake Scotchtown Road in the hopes of whoever else comes before
us will be able to tie in and maybe when they end up doing
that bridge we can get it there also. That's the only thing
I would like to add. I would really like to see a sidewalks
along the front of your property on Silver Lake Scotchtown
Road.
A. Lipman: How many linear feet?
A. Dulgarian: We just did that with the one on Schutt Road,
also.
G. Lake: We have been asking for sidewalks. It's become a
big issue down on Route 211.
A. Dulgarian: I'm done at this time. Thank you.
A. Lipman: I don't think that's the end of the world for us
to accommodate.
G. Lake: Do you agree with sidewalks?
A. Lipman: I think we can do that subject to the other issues.
A. Dulgarian: I'm sorry. I know you mentioned a landscape plan.
Right now we do not have anything. I would like to see what
the landscape plan would be along that road and along that
entrance what Mr. Carr was talking about, especially that
wetland area.
A. Lipman: Can we come back to the flag shaped lots?
G. Lake: Yes.
A. Lipman: The last time we reviewed it, you opted against
the little cul-de-sac.
T. Hamilton: Right.
A. Lipman: Are you now suggesting that you prefer the cul-de-sac?
T. Hamilton: I didn't hear anybody say we were looking for
a cul-de-sac.
A. Lipman: I didn't say that. I said the last time you opted
against the cul-de-sac in favor of what is shown and what I'm
asking is . . .
A.
Dulgarian: What's plan "C"?
A.
Lipman: I don't know what plan "C" is.
A.
Dulgarian: Because I don't like plan "A" or plan "B".
T. Hamilton: We didn't have dimensions or anything else that
we could read to see.
A. Dulgarian: I never approved that. It was a work in progress.
G. Lake: Do you want to go back to another work session and
table it for now or do you want me to call a vote? You're the
applicant and I think you have that right and you've heard
the Board's feelings.
A. Lipman: I hear your feelings but you have the opportunity
to do one of three things. You can deny it, you can approve
it with conditions, or you can approve it. So far, you're not
quite telling me what the conditions are that you would like
to . . .
G. Lake: Well, I . . .
A. Lipman: I don't think you want to tell us we can't do this
job. I think you want to tell us how we can do it.
G. Lake: No.
A. Lipman: Or how we shouldn't do it or how we can do it.
G. Lake: I think the Board would like to see it back up around
the one hundred foot mark. I think that's what came across
from the members. I think the flag lots may be a couple too
many or one too many. I'm not sure. I don't want to speak for
the whole Board. I don't know if they would feel better if
there was only one or two instead of three in there like that.
I know that they want to see some landscaping but that's a
minor thing.
A. Lipman: I think probably I could accommodate with respect
to the lots served by the cul-de-sacs based upon what you're
suggesting now but I can't accommodate the one hundred lot
widths. I just can't do it. I want to do what I can and . .
.
G. Lake: Right.
A. Lipman: what's reasonable. I just can't do, I shouldn't
say I.
G. Lake: I know what you're saying and this has been a very
complicated site from way back.
A. Dulgarian: I think that's why he needs to go to another
work session. If he gets to an average of somewhere around
there. Not every lot has to be one hundred feet. Our biggest
concern is that you're actually trying to pack too much on
this one site and it shows with these three little flag lots
that are stuck in the other guy's backyards.
A. Lipman: I hear you.
A. Dulgarian: That's a big an issue as the lot width. Now,
if you don't make it on a couple of lots so be it but this
is a due-able plan but not as it exists now. When you said
you had three options, approve with stipulations, approve or
deny. You also have the option to go back to another work session
and come up with something that's viable for you and us, that's
good for the Town and good for your clients. I think that's
where we need to be.
A. Lipman: The issue here for us is the total number of lots.
I can't develop the project with less lots.
A. Dulgarian: I don't know at what point it is profitable
nor am I concerned with that. That's not what we're here to
do. My suggestion is to go back to another work session and
try to get it as good as you can for both of us.
A. Lipman: I think we can argue here is the ordinance. The
ordinance requires a minimum of eighty feet which we've provided.
I don't think that's a basis upon which you reject the plan.
I can accommodate the other issues.
T. Hamilton: Let's get a legal interpretation on this.
G. Lake: Did you hear that Mr. Barone?
G. Barone: Not all of it but my comment is it may be a minimum
that they can reach but the configuration particularly in this
part needs to be accepted and that's what I seem to be hearing
is that this particular configuration of these lot widths doesn't
work at eighty feet and it doesn't work at eighty five feet.
A. Lipman: These particular lots where the range is eighty
feet have no restrictions. They are rectangular lots. The wider
lots are of a different configuration. When the ordinance was
adopted it should have said one hundred feet instead of eighty
feet but it says eighty and that's what we meet and have complied
with.
G. Lake: Do you want me to call the vote?
A. Lipman: I thought you were going to give me that option.
How quickly can I get back on to another work session?
G. Lake: Why don't we? Can you call in and we will get you
on?
A. Lipman: Thank you.
G. Lake: Do you waive the sixty two day time frame?
A. Lipman: Subject, we went through this once. I want the
right to tell you on a thirty day notice that it's over.
G. Lake: Thirty days notice that you want to start the sixty
two days? That sounds fair. If we can't get him on, we will
just table it. We will get you back on.
MOTION to TABLE for further review made by A. Dulgarian and
seconded by P. Owen.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
T. Hamilton: Aye
G. Monaco: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES
2. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - HASBROUCK - 16 LOT SUBDIVISION
- Goshen Turnpike (44-1-105) #090-002
G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:30 P.M. M. Hunt read
the PUBLIC HEARING notice.
M. Hunt: 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 18th day of February, 2004 at 7:30 P.M.
or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on
the application of Gordon V. Hasbrouck, 375 Blumel Road, Middletown,
New York 10941, for approval of a sixteen lot residential subdivision,
located on the Northeast side of Goshen Turnpike, County Highway
101, 1,300 feet South of Scotchtown Collabar Road, County Highway
47, under Article III, Section 4, Paragraph G of the Subdivision
Regulations 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, bring us up. You've been
to a couple of work sessions. Bring the whole Board up to speed.
D. Yanosh: There were a few work sessions. It's a sixteen
lot subdivision. The wetlands are all defined and the buffer
zone is there. Fifteen lots will be off the cul-de-sac. It
will be about a thousand foot in and out. They will be all
single family homes with municipal water and sewer.
G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A. Dulgarian: I will hold until after the Public.
P. Owen: I will wait.
R. Carr: Nothing now.
G. Luenzmann: I will wait.
G. Monaco: After the Public.
T. Hamilton: After the Public.
G. Lake: Is there anyone from the Public who wishes to comment
on this application?
N. Guenste: A couple of questions. I was trying to figure
out where on Goshen Turnpike that is. Is it right off the corner?
G. Lake: Right across from the church.
N. Guenste: My curiosity, how big are the houses going to
be?\
G. Lake: How many bedrooms? Are they basically three bedrooms?
D. Yanosh: Three to four bedrooms probably, yes.
T. Hamilton: We don't dictate what size they have to be. They
have to meet the setbacks and whatever else.
Next
Page
