G. Lake: Do you want to address that?

S. Mandelbaum: Yes, I would like to if I may. The exact language in the consultant's memo was it may be possible to use higher power and or antenna heights at the existing sites to expand the fmr wireless coverage area. In other words he was throwing out there as an idea, can you raise the height and or the tower of all the surrounding towers in order to take care of the gap area. The short answer is, not really. I will explain that in a little more detail. The short answer is two problems. First of all, many of those towers are outside of your Town and they are not within Nextel's consultant. In other words, the Orange & Rockland tower at the Public Plaza is owned by Orange & Rockland. It's in the City of Middletown. It's already two hundred fifty feet tall with flashing lights. As far as the power levels, the power levels that were provided to the consultants are Nextel's optimized power levels. In other words they have a standard that every site is tuned to initially, then they go out and are constantly testing them to their network so that it's a balanced system. If any of these sites were cranked up, the reason they just don't go on top of the Empire State Building and cover Metro New York is the phone is so low power that it would never be able to get back to the tower. You would have basically a fancy pager. That's why we need so many sites at low power because the sites have to handle a certain number of calls in a small geographic area which is why it is different than a radio station or a paging antenna which goes a lot farther. Having said that, I did check with our Engineer. Even if we could raise up all the sites and pushed up the power and it theoretically worked which it does not, we would still have a gap because of the topography. You could shoot a thousand watts into a hillside and it would just have a stronger signal by the hillside. Those three factors result in the need for this site. The Pocatello Road site is limited by the terrain. There's a hill that blocks the signal between that site and the Howells Road location. That site is already at one hundred eighty feet which currently, I know it is non-conforming under your code. What we are trying to do is work within what's already out there and go at the maximum permitted height under your current code.

G. Lake: What you are going to do then is have your people explain that to the party that we have?

D. McGoey: Right. How many more towers?

G. Lake: I am bringing that up next. We told you, I think, even before Tarbell Road, I think when we first met you, I think we asked you this question. How many sites are there going to be in the Town of Wallkill? And then we asked, and we all realize that there are several companies now bidding for the same but once again I think the Planning Board has asked in the past and I'm going to ask you again between now and the next meeting. How many more of these sites do we have to have?

S. Mandelbaum: With all respect, we did provide on January 2nd, a map of Nextel's complete build out plan for the Town of Wallkill and of that plan there's five additional sites. This is the only new tower proposed.

G. Lake: Right. I do remember that. We're also worried about company AA@, company AB@ and company AF@.

S. Mandelbaum: Understood.

G. Lake: Are they going to be able to work off what we are doing?

S. Mandelbaum: I understand your concerns. I have to say that we are only here for this applicant. We can only speak for this applicant. We did send letters to all the other carriers regarding this proposal whether they are interested in this site. None of them are going to answer us because it's a competitive industry and they're only going to answer us when the site is approved. I can tell you we did what your code requires and designed it for up to five carriers so you don't have any structural issues with this particular location. I can also tell you that as we discussed with you on Tarbell Road one of Nextel's planned sites is at the other side of Tarbell Road. The reality of the industry is if there is a site there and it has any viability it's so much less expensive to co-locate. The carriers are going to do it. The Pocatello Road site is a perfect example. It's not the greatest site in the world but it's one hundred eighty feet tall and Nextel is using it as a viable part of it's network to connect to this site to the south. I can't speak for the other carriers. I'm not sure what else I can tell you on that issue.

G. Lake: Between now and the next time we see you. Is there any way we can know that he sent the stuff out?

D. McGoey: Yes.

P. Owen: He said he sent out the letters.

S. Mandelbaum: We can certainly follow-up with the carriers and inform them we are up to a Public Hearing stage and the Board wants to know again, is this a site that's viable. We can certainly follow up on those letters from a couple months ago.

G. Lake: I think we would appreciate it.

S. Mandelbaum: Not a problem.

A. Dulgarian: You re-did the cablevision tower, correct?

S. Mandelbaum: That was replaced because it structurally could not support anything beyond Cellular One and Time Warner.

A. Dulgarian: But were you the one that came in to re-do that tower?

S. Mandelbaum: I was the attorney for Nextel.

A. Dulgarian: Now, when Nextel put up that tower I realize Cablevision was on it but did anybody else come on after that?

S. Mandelbaum: I'm not aware of anyone. Right now that tower is for three carriers that I'm aware of. Cellular One was already up there with Cablevision when we approached the Board.

A. Dulgarian: No additional after you constructed the new tower?

S. Mandelbaum: I'm not personally aware of any but there's two other carriers that I don't represent and I can certainly do some work on that.

A. Dulgarian: I'm just curious. It's a pretty unique industry like the first guy in wins and you hold the rest of the competition hostage.

S. Mandelbaum: I can tell you that, I'm sure you're aware of this. Omni Point is at the Middletown Motel and they have a totally different design criteria. There goal was to cover Route 17 and some of Route 211. That's four carriers right there that are basically covering that intersection of Route 17 and Route 211. Verizon Wireless is the fifth carrier who would be even remotely interested in the Industrial Drive site.

A. Dulgarian: What about the tower on Bloomingburg? Has there been any additional carriers on that one?

S. Mandelbaum: Tarbell Road?

A. Dulgarian: Yes.

S. Mandelbaum: Not that I'm aware of. I know Nextel is pursuing a lead to that site. Once that's finalized they would be coming before the Town to co-locate on site.

A. Dulgarian: My other question is, I know I was one of those members that chose that style pole of the blue and the brown. I'm a little disappointed in it myself. I don't quite like it but I don't like the pine either. Is there something else out there?

S. Mandelbaum: I can tell you the Board over in Dutchess County a very similar type of location where there is some tree cover but not all the way up. They went with brown at the base which frankly looks good in all seasons because even when the leaves are off the trees it tends to blend it in more or just galvanized steel which is not shiny. It tends to have a dull finish so it doesn't pick up the sun light. It will pick up better all different color skies. I think the problem with the blue is on a blue sunny day it blends in nicely but on a grey day it tends to be a little too bright.

A. Dulgarian: If there's any other options, I would love to see them when you come back. The last question is either for you or you said you had a telecommunication expert with you. I know nothing about the cellular industry. I heard some things that perhaps five years down the road all cellular phones are going to operate off of a satellite. Is that feasible? If so, where does that leave us as a Town with all these towers? Are you going to dismantle these towers if there's no carriers on them anymore?

S. Mandelbaum: Let me answer your second question first. Your code requires removal and actually allows the Town to do it themselves and charge it back to the applicant. There is also a bonding possibility which is a standard way to assure the money will be there to remove it. That's already provided for in your code. As far as the industry, the carriers are all still signing twenty five-thirty year leases and the reason they are doing so is satellite's are great if you're in the middle of a desert when there is nothing else around. It's never going to be a viable system for an area as Metro New York because of the capacity and because you're always going to be close to the ground to get into those valleys, in between large buildings, satellite's just can't handle the number of channels that are low powered.

A. Dulgarian: He doesn't have to go into any more depth. I just wanted to make sure that we're not just getting stuck with structures down the road.

G. Lake: I think we go with a bond, don't we?

D. McGoey: Yes.

P. Owen: Nothing new.

R. Carr: Nothing.

G. Monaco: I would like to know, do you have any figures on the percentage of used towers that are used for concert and liquor carriers. Is it common practice for carriers to go on board (not clear)?

S. Mandelbaum: That's a good question. Fifteen years ago, even ten years ago when there were essentially two competitors in this area, they built single carrier poles and they were not going to let their competitor's go one there. With the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with Congress opening the industry up to competition, as well as local laws such as yours, which mandate co-location where it's technically feasible. It's the industry standard now to have poles with up to five carriers at ten feet apart approximately instead of having five poles just ten feet vertically. The carriers for the most part and there's always exceptions if Nextel gives Verizon a hard time here, in Utica Verizon is going to give Nextel a hard time and it's not worth it. There's too much competition and the FCC has mandated these networks to be built out quickly to provide reliable service.

G. Lake: If there is nothing else, Dick April 17th will that be enough time?

D. McGoey: I think so.

MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for April 17, 2002 made by G. Monaco and seconded by A. Dulgarian.

VOTING AYE: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, G. Monaco, P. Owen

MOTION CARRIED. 5 AYES

8. MCKEE - ZONE CHANGE REQUEST - R2 to PID - Route 17K/Stone Schoolhouse Road

R. Smith: I'm here on behalf of the McKee family this evening.

G. Lake: You were sent to us from the Town Board.

R. Smith: Correct.

G. Lake: For us to make a recommendation for the zone change.

R. Smith: The McKee family has petitioned the Town Board for this zone change. I can show you on the map where the project is. This is Exit 116 on Route 17. This is Route l7K. This is Stone Schoolhouse Road. It goes from Exit 116 all the way down Route 17K surrounding this one parcel and up Stone Schoolhouse Road to this point. It's all property that's owned by the McKee family. What I've shown in here and there is a reduced copy in the packet I gave you, it is item #2 in your packet. This property is all zoned PID as is the adjoining piece up to the Town line. The land across the street from Route 17 is all zoned PID all the way up and beyond Banke Road I think. It is also zoned PID on the opposite side of Route 17 and it's zoned PID on the what would be the south west side of Route 17, Route 17K all the way down to Route 17M and Route 17. It is also zoned PID going all the way up Route 17 all the way up to Tarbell Road all the way to the next road that crosses over to Goshen Turnpike. This one parcel is appendage is one of the tax parcels in the zone is zoned R-2. Across the street is zoned R-2. Several parcels and then the rest of the property going on out beyond this corridor of the PID zone is zoned R-A. The McKee family purchased this particular piece in 1983and in 1963 when the Town first adopted it's zoning ordinance, all of this property is zoned M-1 and item #7 in the packet I gave you is a copy of the 1963 zoning map on which we've identified the property. It was zoned M-1 at the time. Then all the way up through and including into 1969 that zone continued and the adjoining and the next exhibit in your packet shows a 1969 map which had some revisions but that parcel was still zoned M-1. In 1969 the Town hired Raymond & May Associates to do a Town wide Planning evaluation and as a result of that the Town Consultant had recommended adopting the PID zone. At that time they recommended and item #9 shows that the zoning map was the recommendations of the Planning Consultant that this entire site up to Stone Schoolhouse Road was M-1 and re-zoned PID. What we were told from a couple of sources, and what actually happened in July of 1971 the Town adopted the new zoning ordinance which created PID and made a multitude of other zone changes and I believe also created other classifications. This was all zoned PID for this one parcel. Contrary to the recommendation of the Planning Consultant is was zoned R-2. What we understand is that the owner at that time had preferred the R-2 zone because they had some plans for residential manufactured housing mobile home park. It is a permitted use in the R-2 zone. The McKee family purchased it for the aggregate and gravel. They depleted the mining operation. They re-claimed in the early 1990's and re-claimed the property at a foreclosure with the Department of Environmental Conservation. They are now working on a plan for this property. They have also contracted to purchase the adjoining odd piece to coincide with their property so it could all be planned as one parcel. What we're requesting is that the Town Board take this one parcel that was originally recommended by the Town Planning Consultant to be PID but was zoned R-2 to amend that zone and re-zone that parcel to PID. A couple of other observations that are of significant. This is a drainage stream that goes down through the property and this drainage stream also creates a wetland of about three or four hundred feet wide such that it will prevent anything was happening along Stone Schoolhouse Road. This ends up being a very nature buffer between the residential area and the PID zone.

G. Lake: All we are doing tonight is setting the Public Hearing. Do you have any questions right now?

A. Dulgarian: No.

P. Owen: Nothing.

R. Carr: There is a residence there and I think one of the things that Dick had suggested at the same time to the Town Board that it should be under consideration for the same.

A. Dulgarian: I was wondering if that was creating spot zoning because it has to border a like zone and if it's surrounded by PID, it would have to be PID.

D. McGoey: It is already created. You are not changing it.

A. Dulgarian: No, but if we made PID all around it doesn't it have to have the same zone on both sides?

D. McGoey: I thought that was only if we were making a change.

G. Lake: Mr. Barone, do you want to research that or do you want to answer that tonight?

G. Barone: I will look into it further.

G. Lake: We will get that answer and then maybe between now and the informational meeting you might want to find out what the desire is to do with that.

R. Smith: We will contact the owners and invite them to join it if they wish to.

G. Lake: So between now and the informational meeting you can find that out.

G. Monaco: My concern is two fold. You talk about a natural border of wetland being about three to four hundred feet. It's closer to about two hundred feet through there. We have now before us a housing development that's just going to go to the immediate east of that. The case that you are making here applies I think to people who would be buying into this. The people who would be buying these houses would be thinking they were buying into an R-2 area and in actually they would have PID right across the street from them. The way I feel about that is I don't know anybody that wants to be bordering a potential industrial park. Obviously this land has been R-2 for a number of years and taxed accordingly. It would seem to be a higher market build here of the land being PID. I'm wondering whether in fact the development that we're looking at is going to be developed right across the street from that. Whether, in fact, it would have a negative impact on the value of their land.

R. Smith: The bulk of this is all going PID.

G. Monaco: I understand.

R. Smith: Actually under the zoning law I believe that if it is present ownership has the ability to have the use flexed from one property to the owner if it's one particular parcel.

G. Monaco: I understand that.

R. Smith: This will be developed or utilized which is in conformity with the PID zone which prohibits any residential use. This is really the only land here and it is a very small piece that can be utilized and this shows. Here is the strip of land, the wetlands. And then there is a strip from the road from the edge of the wetlands to the road that is too narrow to do anything on. It might take three to four hundred feet from the road to the backside of the wetlands with this entire strip that acts as a natural buffer.

G. Monaco: And that seasonally varies, obviously what you are looking at there.

G. Lake: Yes, but they still can't build in it.

G. Monaco: I realize that.

R. Smith: It's Federally designated wetlands. It's restricted by the Army Corps. So what you would not want to have is under the current zoning for someone to come in here and put houses in here, just what you're describing and then to build an office/warehouse or something right next door with houses immediately adjacent. It makes more sense for this design of land use plan of this property to be as was originally suggested by the Town Consultant.

G. Monaco: Many years ago when this County was quite different.

R. Smith: It would be one contiguous use up to what is the natural border and not invite further residential development immediately adjacent to the industrial area.

A. Dulgarian: I have one question. Just to take that one step further would you be willing to if given this zone change to have on the map that there will be no disturbance of the wetlands? Because like what was mentioned before, you can re-create wetlands somewhere else if you have if you have the right amount of money and then you can build out the entire piece of property. But if you're willing to leave that as a natural buffer with no plan of getting rid of those wetlands then it becomes a viable thing to put on the table. If you're presenting that as a buffer and then somebody comes in and wants to use all that property then it's a different issue.

R. Smith: Frankly, I don't think it is at all practical. The one thing about this property is it's a large site and it has contiguous lands that are not in the wetlands so when you look at your coverage it all fits here without getting into the wetlands. You can't build that much on this portion.

A. Dulgarian: Then why does that become such an important addition to that property if it can't be used anyway?

R. Smith: Some of this can be used.

G. Lake: We have to set the informational meeting anyway and the Town Board will make the final decision.

R. Smith: Just to get to the process, the Planning Board has a hearing.

G. Lake: What we are going to do right now, we're going to set it for April 17, 2002 for the Informational Hearing. At that point then we will make the recommendation to the Town Board. Then they will set a Public Hearing and they will make the final decision.

G. Monaco: We are also in the works with a Master Plan Revision as of Thursday of last week. With the taking of a parcel this large you may or may not be looking at the entire picture. I would like to wait until it is sent to the Board.

G. Lake: It was sent to us for action by the Town Board so we have to act on it.

A. Dulgarian: It is strictly a recommendation.

G. Lake: That's right. We still have to act on it as the zoning is. We can't sit here and just say we think something's going to happen.

G. Monaco: There is a Master Plan revision.

G. Lake: That could take a couple of years.

G. Monaco: They would then make the final decision.

G. Lake: The bottom line is all we do is recommend it to the Town Board.

G. Monaco: I realize that and then they make the final decision.

MOTION to schedule an INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING for April 17, 2002 made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.

VOTING AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, R. Carr, G. Monaco, P. Owen

MOTION CARRIED.

9. LONGABARDI - 5 LOT SUBDIVISION - Maples Road (48-1-4.9) #025-001

D. Yanosh: I am the surveyor for the project. We were here January 2, 2002 and the Public Hearing was closed on that date. We had a Negative Declaration and we received Preliminary Approval. Tonight we are here for Final Approval. We did get the joint inspection with Eustance & Horowitz. We're just waiting for the letter from them. I talked to them today. I called Richard Guertin's office yesterday and today looking for a letter from him for the note that he wanted on the plans for lot #1. I changed the wording exactly to what he wanted on it. They were the only items we had to take care.

D. McGoey: Dan, it looks like you added a house?

D. Yanosh: No. Okay. I didn't notice that.

G. Lake: That's coming off?

D. Yanosh: Yes.

G. Lake: This has gone all the way through to Preliminary Approval. In that case, it allowed him to go to Eustance & Horowitz which he has done. To clean up some of the old items that Dick and the Planning Board had with him. This is basically ready to be approved since he has cleaned up all the items. This has been around for a while. Dick, providing he meets everything, can we continue and give him Final Approval?

D. McGoey: Dan Patenaude noticed to that he eliminated the cross section for the radius on the Town road.

D. Yanosh: That is the same problem as before.

G. Lake: Do you have anything else on this?

A. Dulgarian: No.

P. Owen: Nothing.

R. Carr: Just so I understand. It's not there at all. It's not a lot.

D. Yanosh: Correct. That will come off.

MOTION for 5 LOT SUBDIVISION approval subject to D. McGoey's and D. Patenaude's comments made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.

VOTING AYE: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, G. Monaco, P. Owen

MOTION CARRIED. 5 AYES

10. TETZ TRUCK WASH - SITE PLAN REVISION - Crystal Run Road (50-1-119)
#007-002

J. Allrich: I'm here with Gary Tetz and Rosemary Stack, his Attorney. What we have before you is a modification to the existing concrete plant site. To advise you as to why we're proposing this I'll back up a little bit. In 1998 the State revised their groundwater discharge standards. Historically at this concrete site and just about every other concrete site, concrete trucks will wash out at the end of each day into earthen pits. These were located along Crotty Road as you look at the Site Plan in this location right here. We undertook to design a re-design of this operation on the site in order to conform with the new regulations. So, what we've done is essentially designed a recycled type plant. We contacted Doug Roulings, an Engineer from New Jersey who has designed quite a few of these around the country. I worked with him. I went to look at a couple of his installations that have been put in and talked to the operators and actually made some improvements on it in order to make it more operationally friendly in terms of cleaning out the material and being able to recycle the aggregate and the wash water. Go to the second sheet of the plans, I can try and explain how this works. Essentially this is a double barrel example of the Rouling design where we have a series of tanks, a three tank system where by at the end of each day or prior to maintenance when the trucks need to be washed out the truck would come in and nose in to the tanks in this manner and wash their truck out into tank #1 and then it's a series of settling from the first chamber to the second and then the third taking out the coarse and then the finer aggregate and finally having just water in the third tank which has been piped to an underground storage tank and that water is recycled back into the concrete mixes the next day and also used for washing the trucks. We're really talking about a closed system where this material when the trucks are washed out is deposited into the tanks and it can run from two sides because tanks #1 and #2 on this side can be rested for a time and drained while operations switch over to the other side where the trucks can come in and wash out on this side and that allows the aggregate to be dried and taken back and put into the next batch of concrete later on. That's basically what we're after. This area is one hundred percent developed today. This operation has been going on in this spot ever since there has been a concrete plant there.

G. Lake: This is where they do it right now?

J. Allrich: Correct.

G. Lake: This fenced in area.

J. Allrich: That's correct.

G. Lake: This is a Department of Environmental Conservation mandate or a new standard that they want you to come up with?

J. Allrich: That's correct. Basically Mr. Tetz has ceased operations on the site as far as the wash out for the time being. In order to do this to meet the new requirements there are a couple of alternatives. One was would be like some operators are doing is to put a liner in. That leads to a problem if the liner gets punctured. We tried to come up with a system that was maintainable, would meet the current standards and also foster the re-use of the aggregate and the water. This way the water isn't lost. You can use it back in the mixes and recapture it.

A. Dulgarian: I just want to make sure this is where he is washing his trucks out now and not further down the road where he stores the concrete blocks.

J. Allrich: Correct.

A. Dulgarian: The guy goes up there and pours the extra concrete in those forms and then he moves down a little bit and then he washes out the barrel and you will be able to use the gravel, stone and water.

J. Allrich: Right.

Continued