4. KABRO ASSOCIATES - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Cottage Street Extension (40-1-50.1) #013-002

L. Wolinsky: I'm here on behalf of Kabro Associates. With me is John Lanc and we're here this evening for Final Approval. I believe we've resolved all the outside agency permits and we've resolved our developer agreement issues.

G. Lake: Just in case there are any questions, I think we worked really hard on this one.

A. Dulgarian: The resolution?

G. Lake: I believe Mr. Barone has reviewed the whole resolution.

D. McGoey: I haven't seen it.

G. Barone: Everything is okay.

P. Owen: Nothing.

R. Carr: Nothing.

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: It's okay legally but what about engineering wise?

D. McGoey: The resolution, the only change that I had. I had a concern that the requirements to mitigate the intersection of Route 211 and Tower Drive and I wanted it to be consistent with the other ten developments so they all had the same thing and apparently they committed to numbers. I'm going to ask Mr. Barone to explain how we don't set a precedence on a set dollar amount.

G. Barone: The concern we have is there's a comprehensive traffic impact study, a chart was developed and Kabro indicates that overall it's maximum exposure for highway improvements is just shy of $180,289 but in connection with the approval of this project for the issuance of a Negative Declaration, they've agreed to take on the improvements of Mud Mills Road and Cottage Street with a projected cost of $225,000 as well as another intersection which is $125,000 more or less. It brings them over what the proportionate share was. But in addition to that because of the size of the project we asked them to pick up a proportion of the costs of other improvements set forth in the study but because they're already over they're share we've agreed to tap that at $53,000 but we don't want those projects that are taking on an intersection to improvement which aren't at they're maximum proportionate share to say we want a cap as well. These people have reached they're cap under here so we will give them a cap in the agreement. Is that how we . . .

L. Wolinsky: Yes. We're $75,000 now over our share.

A. Dulgarian: Thank you.

G. Lake: Anything else? Mr. Barone, do we just make a motion to accept the resolution?

G. Barone: Correct.

MOTION for FINAL APPROVAL subject to the conditions in the RESOLUTION made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

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

5. AIDEN ESTATES ( WRIGHT SUBDIVISION) - 17 LOT SUBDIVISION - Bart Bull Road (39-1-29.4) #081-002

T. Olley: I am the Engineer for the applicant and Mr. Yanosh is with me also if there are any questions. The project is over on Bart Bull Road adjacent to Interstate 84. It's on the westside of Bart Bull Road and borders on the back to Interstate 84. The project was reduced by a couple of lots than was previously submitted. We completed soil testing on all of the lots for individual septic systems and what we would like to get from the Board tonight is a schedule for a Public Hearing. We feel the plans are far enough along that we can do that. We've had a couple of work sessions with the Town Engineer and there's a couple of outstanding items but I think they're relatively minor in nature and could be taken care of prior to the Public Hearing.

G. Lake: Have you talked to the Highway Superintendent at all?

T. Olley: I haven't. I got involved in this project midway along.

D. Yanosh: Did I talk to him, not about this one, no.

G. Lake: He has a comment that plan specifications do not meet Town of Wallkill road specifications 100%. Intersection of roads A & B should eliminate the "point" on lot #9, as this may pose a hazard and needs to be checked in the subdivision specifications. The Fire District also has a couple of comments. I will give that to you. I will now go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Please come back to me.

P. Owen: Nothing right now.

R. Carr: Does this have to conform to the stormwater management plan?

D. McGoey: Yes.

R. Carr: It hasn't yet?

D. McGoey: No.

R. Carr: It could potentially change the lots?

D. McGoey: It could change some, yes. He has a couple of different drainage basins.

T. Olley: We've actually gone through and designed those basins with all the drainage calculations. I have it in a report form for Mr. McGoey but we don't anticipate that it will change any of the lots at this point. In fact, we made sure we have the proper separations between the wetlands and the septic systems. The grading on these plans actually reflect the final design of those basins. They do comply with the new Department of Environmental Conservation regulations.

R. Carr: How old is this application?

D. Yanosh: Since before the changes in the zoning. We did up them to two acres. All the lots are over two acres and I think the road frontage lot widths are probably close to the two hundred all the way through. We changed the number of lots from the original layouts that you saw in the beginning. They are all over two acres right now.

D. McGoey: The application was made September, 2002.

R. Carr: I'm not crazy about it. It still seems like it's jammed in there. I realize you have to deal with the wetlands. What was the comment about that corner?

T. Olley: Regarding lot #9. We will speak with the Highway Superintendent to iron that out. We tried to make that as near a right angle as possible so it would be a safe intersection.

G. Luenzmann: Lot #3, how do you get into that?

T. Olley: On the fifty scale, the next sheet, it shows the driveway location. It would be the only driveway that would be located off of Bart Bull Road. It's on the right hand side of the sheet.

G. Luenzmann: I see it now. And also, the houses on Bart Bull Road are very close to the road. Is that because of the wetlands?

T. Olley: Yes it is. Those are Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands so there is a one hundred foot buffer associated with them and we've pushed them further away from the road than they were originally and we've pushed them back as far as we can so that gravity flows into the septic systems.

G. Lake: How far apart are they?

T. Olley: Only lot #3 is about forty five feet. Lots #1 and #2 they're back about sixty five to seventy feet.

G. Luenzmann: I would just have a concern about lot #3 seems to be particularly close to the road. I have a concern about that. In that area it would be nice to set them back as far from the road to be more aesthetically pleasing.

T. Olley: We would love to do that if it weren't for the wetland buffer.

G. Monaco: I also have a concern about the houses being close to the road. That one house, you aren't able to move back?

T. Olley: The Department of Environmental Conservation likes us to stay anywhere from ten to twenty feet away from the buffer as a minimum to do grading around the house or construction.

T. Hamilton: Dick, a question. Something I'm noticing on this, on your setback, you can put your septic systems and so forth in the setback. Are you allowed to do that?

D. McGoey: Yes. You can't have a structure.

T. Hamilton: Some of the leach fields are out right near the road.

T. Olley: The Health Department requires that the septic systems be a minimum of ten feet off of any property line and the wells be fifteen feet off of any property line. That's the setback that the Health Department has.

T. Hamilton: That's where the tank is?

T. Olley: No, that's a septic system. It's a leach field.

T. Hamilton: Ten feet back?

T. Olley: Yes sir.

G. Lake: Mr. Dulgarian, you asked me to come back to you.

A. Dulgarian: I agree on lot #3. I would like to see that set back a little bit more especially in a rural area like this. This is acceptable with one hundred foot lots in the Town but when you get out into the country like that I really like them off the road. I know that you're restricted by wetlands but again, that's self inflicted and not our fault. A lot of these houses you are showing three bedroom, four bedroom, and five bedroom houses. Is that because of the septics that are acceptable?

T. Olley: That's correct.

A. Dulgarian: The bedrooms are based on the septics?

T. Olley: Yes it is.

A. Dulgarian: On this site, are there any old grown trees on this site?

T. Olley: It's pretty much all cornfield and meadows. There is some old growth.

A. Dulgarian: I would like pick out what old growth is there and see what we can save before we go in there ripping and tearing. Lastly, the Fire Department made a comment here. Would this be a good place, and I don't know anything about firematics, but a dry hydrant is that a place where that would work?

G. Lake: I don't think there is a pond on the lot.

A. Dulgarian: Oh, I just thought you just plugged into that?

D. Yanosh: No. You have to tie into a pond or stream for a dry hydrant unless we design something for stormwater management plan that does that with the Department of Environmental Conservation but being in the wetlands and doing something with the wetlands they are not going to think highly of it. We will look at it.

A. Dulgarian: Is there anything to answer the fire companies comments?

D. Yanosh: I just got them tonight. I don't know. The Bart Bull Bridge road is out so we can't do anything. The only access is the short one there.

G. Lake: I think we can follow up with the Fire Chief of Mechanicstown.

D. Yanosh: If we can maybe add a pond we would probably do that.

D. McGoey: My biggest concern is that they get the Army Corps wetlands delineated also.

T. Olley: We have had that delineated. I actually brought them with me. We will show it on this plan. It's an oversight. It zigzags in and out in a few places but it will not change where the road crossing is. Actually in one place it's actually a little narrower, the Federal delineation. We're staying under a tenth of an acre with the Army Corps. It won't be necessary to get the permit from them.

D. Yanosh: It's all open field here, all barren until you get down to the wetlands and above the wetlands is the tree line.

A. Dulgarian: Was this zoned RA?

D. Yanosh: We changed from MI to RA.

A. Dulgarian: How long ago was that?

D. Yanosh: A couple of years ago. Again, the problem was the developer that wanted to come in here, the wood chipping outfit and recycling and the public animosity against it.

A. Dulgarian: Oh, yes.

D. Yanosh: It's the same site.

A. Dulgarian: Just for the record. You have to be careful what you wish for. All this area out here if they're going to change from PID or MI to RA there will be numerous subdivisions. Let it be said here first that.

D. Yanosh: I will say this. The owner did try to have it developed as MI and you know what happened at that Public Hearing.

A. Dulgarian: Yes.

G. Lake: Call Mr. Lippert at the Department of Public Works and straighten that out. Mr. McGoey, does he need another work session before a Public Hearing.

D. McGoey: Yes. I want to see if he can straighten the setbacks out on Bart Bull and check the wetlands.

G. Lake: Do you think we're okay to set a Public Hearing?

D. McGoey: No, not yet.

D. Yanosh: What's your next agenda for a Public Hearing?

G. Lake: We don't have a work session available between now and the first available for a Public Hearing. Give a call to the office tomorrow and get scheduled for a work session.

Tabled for further review.

6. (MILLER) WEATHERLY ESTATES - 12 LOT SUBDIVISION - California & Howells Road (32-1-29.22) #083-002

D. Yanosh: I'm the surveyor for the project. I believe I was here quite a while ago in the beginning with this layout. We revised it. We've shortened the cul-de-sac up. We have a twelve lot subdivision. Again, ten of the lots would come in off of California Drive up to Weatherly Drive and the cul-de-sac. One lot fronts on Howells Road and the other lot fronts on Pennsylvania Avenue and the remainder of the property. At the work sessions, Mr. McGoey wanted an overall plan with the rest of the development and also a road that goes out from Weatherly Drive out to Howells Road. That's the extra sheet that you have.

A. Dulgarian: Is that lot total or thirty additional?

D. Yanosh: That's just based on two acre zoning, two hundred foot wide lots and nothing to do with soils. We have no idea what the soil conditions are. It could change all the way through. With that layout with the road going out you're looking at thirty total.

A. Dulgarian: You said two acre lots?

D. Yanosh: That's what this plan shows.

D. McGoey: This subdivision is not consistent with the overall sketch plan.

D. Yanosh: This is the one we want to get approved.

A. Dulgarian: Right, but . . .

D. Yanosh: You have another sheet in your package. Again, this one shows two acre lots and shows a road going out to Howells Road. My subdivision here, again, the twelve lot, again was submitted prior to the zoning change and meet all those criteria's.

D. McGoey: The fact that Mr. Dulgarian is making is the subdivision that you want to get approved is not consistent with the overall sketch plan.

D. Yanosh: We made it better, really.

D. McGoey: The lots are smaller and there's no road out of Howells Road.

D. Yanosh: Again, that's something that we discussed at a work session. I feel I don't need a road out to Howells Road. I met with the Highway Superintendent and I think we road around Pennsylvania Avenue down to California Drive and he didn't really say yes or no. One of his comments was to discuss. I don't know whether the people on California Drive are going to want a wide road coming in off of Howells Road into Weatherly Drive and out through California. It would be a lot more traffic for those people living in small little developments for many years. California Drive is a small little, I don't know how wide the pavement is probably twenty foot wide or something. We discussed it and I really don't like that situation. My feeling is I don't like the road going through those homes. You have access around the County Highway out to Route 211 and over to Howells Road to Ingrassia Road. It's a Board decision whether you want a road to go through but I don't think we need one. You would be creating a lot more traffic for these people.

A. Dulgarian: Who's creating a lot more traffic?

D. Yanosh: You're putting a road there for people to go through and use it as a short cut. It was a comment from the work session and we showed you a plan.

D. McGoey: I've been out there and I've taken a look at it. It's very feasible to develop a road to Howells from Weatherly Drive. It does make some sense. I haven't had a chance to talk to the Highway Superintendent to see what he says. It would avoid people from going down to Ingrassia Road and making a left.

D. Yanosh: But they're still going through, right now they're going down the State Highway all the way to Middletown to Ingrassia Road. You're going to turn it into a Town road down to another Town road to Ingrassia Road. It just doesn't . . . I don't know the time saving of anybody going around Route 211 or cutting through that small development would matter too much.

D. McGoey: It is a consideration.

D. Yanosh: Again, the rest of it is just sketch. We show the "T" at the end by the Kalvasa property. We haven't done any soils tests or anything.

A. Dulgarian: Why doesn't this road seem to flow? Usually when a loop road is put in a project it's just kind of a loop. You've got this kick in here.

D. Yanosh: We straightened out the curve. If we had a nice square lot it's easy but to get around that jog . . .

A. Dulgarian: What do you mean getting around a jog? Is it a topography program or are you talking about lot lines?

D. Yanosh: Showed Mr. Dulgarian.

A. Dulgarian: I'm not a designer. I don't design them but I can tell you when they don't look good.

D. Yanosh: To me, I don't even like the proposed drive from Pennsylvania. You go through Pennsylvania and California Drive, you have very small lots there and a small community. Are these people going to want roads going all the way through and circular? I like the small community where the people live now.

G. Lake: If you've been out there, California Drive is like tucked back in there.

R. Carr: I think you're going to have this traffic any way. Right now, it's the only way they have.

G. Lake: Are you allowing off this cul-de-sac, a right-of-way for this road?

D. Yanosh: This plan doesn't show it.

G. Lake: I will go back to the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Lot #12 with the interior road, I would take Mr. McGoey's recommendation to get up there and take a look at the site a little better and at least consider a through road. I would like to see the lots throughout the build-out.

P. Owen: I think if we're going to put in a through road here, I think we need to put one in that is going to be more user friendly.

R. Carr: I will go an visit the site because my first impression would be to go with a through road.

G. Luenzmann: Yes. Where is the through road that we're talking about?

D. Yanosh: Showed Mr. Luenzmann.

G. Luenzmann: The one going to Howells.

D. Yanosh: It would cut through from here. Howells Road is a small road to begin with. Keep the people on Route 211 and the State Highway where they belong. The Town's going to have to plow and maintain another nine hundred feet of road.

G. Luenzmann: I will have to drive out there and take a look at it.

G. Monaco: I reserve my decision. I will go back out there and check it.

T. Hamilton: Nothing.

G. Lake: I personally I understand the benefit of two roads but in this case I do know the neighborhood out there. I did go out and I don't think California Drive can handle the major road connection between the two. I agree to keep the traffic on the State road and that is my opinion.

A. Dulgarian: What's your opinion on the loop road inside the project, are you comfortable with that?

G. Lake: Inside here?

A. Dulgarian: Yes, with that kick in there.

D. Yanosh: Yes, we can do something with it. We can loop it around from one road to the other.

D. McGoey: Yes but we want to make sure that the approved subdivision can still have the road.

D. Yanosh: What we're looking at now, this subdivision here, if this is approved this way has no affect on that overall plan at all because it uses Pennsylvania Avenue and that's it.

Next Page