TOWN
OF WALLKILL
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 20, 2002
MEMBERS
PRESENT: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, R. Carr, G. Monaco, P. Owen
MEMBERS
ABSENT: T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann
OTHERS
PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey
1. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. - R & N REALTY - SITE PLAN -
Route 211 West/New Vernon Road/Church Street (33-4-5) #58-001
CANCELLED.
2. FREDERICK'S TRUCK SALES - Tower Drive
MOTION
to reschedule a PUBLIC HEARING for April 3, 2002 made by G.
Monaco and seconded by A. Dulgarian. 5 AYES
3. MOTION made by G. Monaco and seconded by R. Carr for THOMAS
HAMILTON to be Vice Chairman. 5 AYES
4. CERULLO - 9 LOT SUBDIVISION - Route 17K/Schoolhouse Road
(1-1-42) #032-001
M.
Siemers: We have a nine lot subdivision of approximately fifty
acre parcel. All the houses are going to be served by individual
sewer and wells. We have one driveway coming off the State road,
Route 17K. The other eight are off the town road, Stone Schoolhouse
Road. Basically tonight we're looking for Sketch Plan approval
and to set a Public Hearing.
G.
Lake: You have had two or three work sessions with Mr. McGoey?
M.
Siemers: Right.
G. Lake: The questions on the technical review, are you going
to be able to satisfy those between now and the Public Hearing?
M.
Siemers: I do have a couple of questions. There are four comments
about the Agricultural District.
G.
Lake: Correct.
M.
Siemers: If our property, is in fact, within five hundred feet.
Well, I took the tax map and I outlined the Agricultural District
line and then I took the Water Authority feeding and put the
line on there and put five hundred foot radius around our property
and it shows we are not within five hundred feet.
G.
Lake: Okay. If he proves he is not within that, does he have
to put that note on the plan yet?
D.
McGoey: Is there a conflict between our tax map and the County
Water Authority map?
M.
Siemers: No. I just put the line from the tax map and put it
on the County Water Authority map by lot line.
G.
Lake: The next question.
M.
Siemers: The next question is to combine the driveways. Lot
#1 and #2 we have no problem with. Lot #3 would you like that
driveway snaked over to lot #4 so they meet at that lot line?
D.
McGoey: Because of the number of lots sometimes we lot get the
driveways closer to the boundary lines so it appears as though
there is only one driveway so we don't have so many driveway
cuts on the town road.
G.
Lake: Why don't you re-visit that between now and your Public
Hearing and see what you can do?
M.
Siemers: Right.
D.
McGoey: And, there was one more concern raised by Mr. Monaco
which I will bring up unless you want to bring it up.
G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: The setbacks, lot #6 and lot #7 are a lot closer
to the road. Is that because of the topography and how high
it is?
M.
Siemers: Yes, and also because of the soils. We don't have the
best soils out here and there is a pocket of good soil through
here and there's good soil up here. That's the reason for the
location.
A.
Dulgarian: What is the setback going to be, do you know?
M.
Siemers: You want exact dimensions for . . .
A.
Dulgarian: I'm just curious how close it is on lot #6 from the
front lot line.
D.
McGoey: Probably one hundred fifty feet.
P.
Owen: Nothing.
R.
Carr: Nothing.
G.
Monaco: The concern I have deals with lot #9 and the driveway
coming out of Route 17K. You're right on the edge of the knoll
and you have a line of site of four hundred fifty feet. My concern
is this. That road is traveled at fifty five minimum, sometimes
in excess of sixty five miles per hour. In the early morning,
a person coming out on that road could have very little chance
of entering that road safely. I don't know what to do because
if we bring it down any further it will shorten their view even
further. Quite frankly, do you have any suggestions?
D.
McGoey: First of all, we should verify whether the site distance
that he shows at fifty five meets the standards. And secondly,
whether the site distance . . .
M.
Siemers: We do have to submit this to the State Department of
Transportation to get approval. I have the numbers for the speed
at the office so, I will look into that.
G.
Lake: Dick, anything else?
D.
McGoey: No.
G. Lake: You have no problems with the rest of the comments?
M.
Siemers: No.
G.
Lake: Dick, do you need another work session to finish this
up?
D.
McGoey: Yes.
MOTION
made to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for April 3, 2002 made by
G. Monaco and seconded by R. Carr.
VOTING
AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Monaco, P. Owen
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
5. ASHLEY ESTATES - LOT LINE CHANGE - James Clark Drive/Howells
Turnpike (6-2-11) #011-002
L.
Potter: I am with Lanc & Tully Engineering. The parcel is
located on Howells Turnpike. What the applicant is asking for
is a lot line change. He has purchased a parcel of land next
to an existing parcel that he already owns and wishes to change
one of the lots in the previous subdivision to a smaller lot
and incorporate the bulk of that lot with the parcel that he
has just purchased. This will be for a further subdivision at
another time.
G.
Lake: Dick's comments. Do you have them?
L.
Potter: Mr. Steinberg will explain the first one.
R.
Steinberg: The first comment, my intention is to subdivide the
parcel. I had one meeting with Mr. McGoey with the Sketch Plan
and right now we are incorporating the changes that he suggested.
The parcel we're taking off drops off at the cliff so it's only
really accessible from Howells Turnpike. That's why the thirty
acres is being combined with the parcel below. Right now it's
probably going to be a horse shoe with a little cul-de-sac into
the new parcel and no driveways will be on Howells Turnpike.
Two hundred feet frontage for all of the lots on the new road.
G.
Lake: Dick, do you have any more comments on this?
D. McGoey: It obviously impacts the number of lots that will
be allowed in the new subdivision. I'm just wondering whether
we aught to deal with the lot line change and that subdivision
at the same time rather than piece meal.
G.
Lake: So, you're saying the whole new project that he might
be bringing in, do it all in one shot instead of the way he
is doing it now?
D.
McGoey: Right.
R.
Steinberg: My comment to that, I finished the house that's on
the existing lot and the people want to move into the house
and it really has no affect on the existing house. The house
that I built over there is sufficient. The new lot will be 3.36
acres. You will have plenty of time to review the thirty acres
with the combined piece below. This isn't in for subdivision
approval on the new piece.
G.
Lake: We realize that but we also realize that you're thinking
about moving ahead also.
R.
Steinberg: My intention is to file a new subdivision with the
new property that I purchased below and combine the two parcels
together. However, the person I sold the house to, they don't
want to have a parcel that's thirty four acres. In the current
Ashley Estates, they are about two acres, three acres. They
will have one of the bigger lots.
G.
Lake: 3.3.
R.
Steinberg: That's going to be one of the biggest out of the
twenty three lots. None of them are really three acres. They
all about one acre and a half to two acres.
G.
Lake: This house is built already?
R.
Steinberg: That's the existing house with an existing septic
and well. The parcel in the back drops off a cliff. It has no
affect on the existing house.
G.
Lake: Go on to the second comment.
L.
Potter: The plans have been revised to indicate where the monumentation
should be. I gave them to Mr. McGoey this evening.
G.
Lake: And the third comment I think you have taken care of.
L. Potter: Yes.
A.
Dulgarian: My only question to Dick what is the difference between
this and an actual subdivision? A lot line and a subdivision
because I have no problem removing that line but when you add
the other line isn't that just a subdivision?
D.
McGoey: It's a minor, well not a minor, it's actually a major
because it's part of the previous.
A.
Dulgarian: Then why are we calling it a lot line change?
D.
McGoey: It's a subdivision and a lot line change because you're
subdividing the 33.79 acre parcel into two lots and then you're
combining one of those lots to the frontage on Howells Turnpike.
L.
Potter: We're not actually creating an additional lot though.
P.
Owen: I have nothing at this time.
R.
Carr: Is there an existing subdivision on this property?
R.
Steinberg: Right now the only thing we submitted was the Sketch
design which was accessing off of Howells Turnpike because the
thirty acres you can't access off of James Clark Drive. It's
too steep and drops down. I incorporated Mr. McGoey's comments.
We had a work session with Mr. McGoey and the Engineer is working
on a new proposal showing no lots on Howells Turnpike. Originally
I showed off of Howells Turnpike. He said he doesn't want any
driveways off of Howells Turnpike. Also, he wanted two hundred
feet wide and then he wanted a box for each house.
R.
Carr: My only reservation here is in regard to doing this here
without knowing how it will change that.
G.
Monaco: Not directly dealing with this because we will be dealing
with it another time but how many lots do you plan?
R. Steinberg: The total parcel when combined will be 68 acres.
I submitted a proposal that shows thirty one however that was
with one hundred fifty feet frontage. Mr. McGoey said that he
wanted two hundred feet. The Engineers will be showing the new
design at two hundred feet. In addition, I showed driveway off
of Howells Turnpike. He doesn't want any driveways off of Howells
Turnpike. It's going to be less. I would estimate about twenty
six or twenty seven lots.
G.
Lake: At the work session, we did mention those things to him.
Mr. Barone, lot line change or not?
G.
Barone: It's a lot line change in my opinion.
G.
Lake: Anybody else?
MOTION
for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by P. Owen and seconded by G.
Monaco.
VOTING
AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Monaco, P. Owen
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
MOTION
for a LOT LINE CHANGE subject to D. McGoey's comments made by
P. Owen and seconded by R. Carr.
VOTING
AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Monaco, P. Owen
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
6. HERITAGE HILLS - 33 LOT SUBDIVISION - Lybolt Road (12-1-45)
#030-001
L.
Potter: I am with Lanc & Tully Engineering.
G.
Lake: Do you want to give us a description of what you will
be doing?
L.
Potter: This is a residential subdivision proposed on the westerly
side of Lybolt Road. The existing acreage is 134.5 acres. We
are proposing to subdivide this into thirty three lots with
two cul-de-sacs on it. They all will be served by individual
septic and wells.
G.
Lake: And, you have had work sessions with Mr. McGoey?
L. Potter: Yes we have.
G.
Lake: I believe we increased some lot sizes if I remember correctly.
L.
Potter: Yes we have.
G.
Lake: We have the road issue squared away.
L.
Potter: Yes.
G.
Lake: Dick's comments. Are there any problems and have you seen
them?
L.
Potter: Yes I have seen them. Do you want to go through each
one individually?
G.
Lake: Can you solve these by the time of the Public Hearing?
L.
Potter: Yes we can. I've also scheduled another work session
for March 11, 2002.
G.
Lake: Do you want to go through these items one by one. They
are basically engineering.
A.
Dulgarian: I think they can be addressed at the Public Hearing.
The white house at the bottom, is that Peterson's?
L.
Potter: Yes.
A.
Dulgarian: It surrounds that?
L.
Potter: Yes.
A.
Dulgarian: Was this originally that parcel?
L.
Potter: That was all originally the Peterson farm.
A.
Dulgarian: Why the configuration on lot #8 and lot #23?
L.
Potter: Lot #8, the front part closest to Lybolt Road is all
wetlands. It can't be subdivided so it needed to be combined
with eight rather than making a number of people responsible
for what happens within the wetlands.
A. Dulgarian: What about lot #23?
L.
Potter. The large lot. That again is mostly wetlands. In order
to cross that you would have to have (not clear), the applicant
wanted to combine it with one lot.
A.
Dulgarian: No further subdivision on that forty acres.
L.
Potter: I'm not going to say no further subdivision on that
lot. It's possible somebody could subdivide it.
A.
Dulgarian: But there is going to be one house on that which
is serviced by the cul-de-sac.
L.
Potter: At this time, yes.
P.
Owen: Nothing.
R.
Carr: Was there something provided for trees?
L.
Potter: We will be indicated on the next set of plans, as the
plans are revised, the areas that will be disturbed or cleared
for building purposes.
G.
Lake: Otherwise, you will be putting a box on the plans indicating
the clearing area.
L
Potter: It would be indicated as a clearing area. Most of the
site is fairly clear. It's just these lots probably about like
#19 and #26 back that are in the wooded area. The rest of it
is in an open field.
G.
Lake: Even then, you will only disturb the trees you have to.
L.
Potter: Yes.
R.
Carr: In terms of the drainage basin right up on the front of
the road. How is that going to look so it isn't unattractive?
L.
Potter: It's not an attractive feature but drainage flows down
hill and it happens to be the lowest point to be able to collect
the drainage and today's requirement require some sort of filtration
and detention and that's the only place we could put it.
R. Carr: Will it be hidden from the road?
L.
Potter: It will look like a depression, a grass depression.
It's not going to be something that's going to hold water all
the time.
R.
Carr: Usually they catch all kinds of debris.
G.
Lake: Who is going to maintain that?
L.
Potter: The Town.
G.
Lake: You are going to pay the Town a fee to maintain that correct?
L.
Potter: Yes.
D.
McGoey: Do you want to talk about the landscaping for that?
L.
Potter: We can show landscaping.
G.
Lake: It is possible to put trees around it?
L.
Potter: Yes.
G.
Monaco: I'm concerned about lot #23 and the size of lot #23.
Looking at the map with the wetlands you seem to indicate that
at this point that further on of dividing that?
L.
Potter: No. There is not.
G.
Monaco: Can a note be put on that?
G.
Lake: You can't do anything with the wetlands.
G.
Monaco: I know you can't.
G.
Lake: You just can't. You're not allowed to.
G.
Monaco: There have been cases though in the Town of Wallkill
where wetlands had been taken away from other wetlands. I would
feel comfortable with a note.
G. Lake: What was that note again?
G.
Monaco: The note that lot #23 will not be subdivided.
G.
Lake: You're not willing to do that.
L.
Potter: No. There is a lot of land in the back portion and someone
could if they wanted to go through the process of getting a
Department of Environmental Conservation Permit to cross the
wetlands in order to develop the back if they so chose. We are
not proposing to do that with the subdivision but I cannot restrict
it for future. It's too much land.
G.
Lake: How much good land is in the back?
L.
Potter: Probably twenty five acres of good land. If you look
at the location map above, you will see the parcel that adjoins
that in the back comes out on Route 302. If someone did decide
to subdivide from that direction, I can't restrict that lot.
G.
Monaco: My concern would be two fold. That this going to make
a high density development.
G.
Lake: She has until the Public Hearing to come up with a better
answer for you. You will look at that between now and the next
time.
L.
Potter: Yes.
G.
Lake: Dick, do you have anything else on this before we set
the Public Hearing?
D.
McGoey: No.
MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for April 3, 2002 made by
R. Carr and seconded by P. Owen.
VOTING
AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Monaco, P. Owen
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
7. NEXTEL OF NEW YORK TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL
USE PERMIT - Howells Road (21-1-20.31) #051-001
S. Mandelbaum: I'm an attorney with the law firm of Snyder &
Snyder. I'm here on behalf of Nextel of New York doing business
as Nextel Communications regarding Nextel's proposed telecommunications
facility at 255 Howells Road. I know you have a couple of new
members and with the Chairman's permission I'd like to briefly
summarize the proposal and just let you know what we've been
up to since we were last before you on December 19, 2001. As
I mentioned, the proposal is at 255 Howells Road on an approximately
twenty acre parcel located in close proximity to the Conrail
active right-of-way and the property is also transected by existing
Orange & Rockland public utility transmission lines. The
proposal is for a one hundred fifty foot tall monopole which
is a flag pole like structure with twelve panel antennas mounted
at the top of the pole and a prefabricated two hundred forty
square foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole within
a secured fence compound. We did obtain a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals back in September under the Communications
Code of the Town of Wallkill where the tower must be at least
one thousand feet in all directions from the closest residence
if not located on the subject parcel. In this case the closest
home is seven hundred ninety two feet but following the Public
Hearing and discussion of why this location was chosen, the
Zoning Board did grant that variance back in September. We would
like to note that this was the second proposal on Howells Road.
The original proposal before the Zoning Board was back in the
year 2000 at 41 Howells Road which is commonly known as 5 L's
Sand & Gravel. That proposal was for a hundred ninety nine
tall foot tower and it needed substantial additional variances
in addition to the one variance for the residence. At the strong
urgence of the Zoning Board, we went back out and located this
twenty acre parcel where we only needed one variance and we
were also able to drop the height down to the permitted height
of one hundred fifty which is the maximum permitted height in
the Town. We were here in December following a couple of work
sessions with Mr. McGoey and since December 19th we've done
several things. We provided conceptual overall plans to the
Town based on the existing surrounding towers that are already
in the Town and how this site would fit into that grid. We held
the balloon test as discussed on January 19, 2002 from 8 A.M.
to 11 A.M. We provided the Site Plan per Mr. McGoey's request
to include site distances, more detailed labeling of the type
of trees proposed to be removed. There are only three that are
proposed to be removed. Additional details regarding the access
drive and bollards. We also submitted computer simulations where
the balloon was visible, what the proposed facility would look
like both as a steel monopole, a painted monopole which is what
you previously approved up at Tarbell Road and the Aevergreen
tree@ design which is the design that is an alternative as your
code requires. Certainly this site is somewhat wooded. It does
have a clear right-of-way for Orange & Rockland lines and
Mr. Stack's house is on another portion of the property but
there is substantial amount of existing vegetation on the property
as well as an existing pond. We did provide that option and
Mr. McGoey's memos did note that the Board should take a look
at those different options. Finally, we forwarded the requested
information to Collin & Everest who are the radio frequency
consultants retained by the Town per Mr. McGoey's office to
do an independent evaluation of the need for the site. I did
receive, this afternoon, from Mr. McGoey's office a copy of
the draft report issued by the consultants last week together
with a memorandum from Mr. McGoey summarizing the conclusions
of that report. There were some open issues that we would like
to address. We are prepared to either address tonight or if
the Board is comfortable setting a Public Hearing between now
and the Public Hearing regarding the proposed site. There's
no contention that there is a there is currently a gap in Nextel
service in the Howells Road area of the Town. I guess the open
issue is whether the proposed facility at the proposed height
is the best alternative and the least intrusive way to address
that gap. There is some discussion in Mr. McGoey's memo which,
I don't know if you all received the draft report, but we do
have our Engineer here tonight and the Professional Engineer
who designed the plans. We can answer any questions the Board
may have tonight or we could go back and work on that between
now and the Public Hearing.
G.
Lake: Here are some pictures of the balloon test. The first
one I am passing down is, I believe, the Bowser Road bridge.
I believe the second one is also from the Bower Road bridge.
This is from the Derby Road bridge and this is also from that
same area. Dick, on the report that we received from the third
consultant.
D.
McGoey: Right.
G.
Lake: Do you want to just give the Board a review of what that
was and then maybe we can just go over some of these points
and then we will make a decision on where we are going to go?
S.
Mandelbaum: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Are those photographs part
of the record or are copies of those available?
G.
Lake: We can make them available. They are the ones we took.
They will be in the record.
D.
McGoey: I will read you the conclusion.
G. Lake: I know we just got that.
D.
McGoey: I haven't had a chance to evaluate it thoroughly but
the conclusion is as follows: AThere is currently a gap in the
Nextel Wireless Service in Wallkill, New York area for an f10r
signal.@ The f10r is the type of signal that Nextel uses.
S.
Mandelbaum: Correct.
D.
McGoey: Other potential sites located nearby cannot provide
the 86 dbm frm signal levels through the gap area based on the
noted power and antenna height. The proposed site at 255 Howells
Road can service the gap area with the h50bm signal level. The
question that I raised in my comments are if it's a matter of
increasing the power and possibly increasing the height of a
couple of existing towers can we fill the gap without a new
tower?
Continued
