TOWN OF WALLKILL
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MARCH 6, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann, G. Monaco

MEMBERS ABSENT: P. Owen

OTHERS PRESENT: G. Barone, P. Hines

1. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. - QUICKWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK #7 - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Turner Drive (40-1-57.22) #027-000

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:30 P.M. C. Kelly read the Public Hearing notice.

C. Kelly: 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 6th day of March, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the application of Wallkill Seven & Ten, LLP, 2 Parkway & Route 17 South, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07485 for approval of Quickway Industrial Park, Site #7 consisting of a proposed 153,000 square foot warehouse along Turner Drive off of Tower Drive within the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, New York (Tax Map Sec. 40, Block 1, Lot 57.22) under Section 249-40D(3) 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

R. Winglovitz: I am from Tectonic Engineering.

G. Lake: Do you want to give a description. I know we've had a lot of workshops on it.

R. Winglovitz: This is for lot #7 of the Quickway Industrial Park Subdivision. What we are proposing is a 153,000 square foot office/warehouse facility. I think we had a maximum office space since that would be the controlling factor for parking and so forth of 42,000 square feet of that 153,000 square feet. The site is at the end of Turner Drive which is in the PID zone. It's approximately ten acres which includes an existing detention pond that is also servicing site #2 of the Chromolloy building. We will eventually be discharging the water to this pond. It's going to be modified slightly as far as this project as well as somewhere

being discharged to a pond behind site #8 which is the newest Frassetto building that's directly on Tower Drive. There are approximately one hundred eighty seven parking spaces for this facility, loading docks in the rear of the building. One of the biggest concerns was the visual. What we have done is we have set the loading docks back in and I can give you an idea of what it's going to look like. This will be a large fill slope that will be coming up towards the back part of the site and there is a vacated buffer that will remain. This fill slope will also have a screen at the top of the slope which will screen the rear of the building. We made the modifications as directed by McGoey, Hauser & Edsell's office regarding lighting. We've reduced the lighting levels in the back to further reduce impacts of lighting with Route 17.

G. Lake: Before I go to the Public, I will go to the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Nothing.

R. Carr: I'm concerned about the road, Turner Drive being used for that type of traffic. Has there been a traffic study done to see if improvements were necessary?

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing at this time.

R. Winglovitz: There has not been a study done. Turner Drive was recently taken over by the Town. I have a letter dated October 18, 2000 as a Public street. Our position is if the Town accepted dedication we believe that it should be okay. It's only two years that the Town has had ownership but it's an industrial park road that was built. We are doing other traffic mitigation and our position at this point is that we don't feel we should have to do any studies through mitigation that has already been obtained.

T. Hamilton: Yes but the comment in Dick's letter is way later than this was received back in October.

R. Winglovitz: Correct.

T. Hamilton: That's what I'm saying. We have a new comment here from Dan Patenaude.

R. Winglovitz: I think Dan may have a new comment obviously subsequent to that letter and

our position is that since it has been dedicated if there are anything that needs to be done it should have been at that time. We don't feel in two years that it's not in compliance.

G. Lake: Isn't your client the one who built the road?

R. Winglovitz: It was built partially by Mr. Mills and partially by our client.

G. Lake: And your opinion is that since Mr. Patenaude has looked at the specifications and accepted the road on behalf of the Town , that it should be an industrial road up there?

R. Winglovitz: Correct.

T. Hamilton: So, what we will do is wait for another verification from Dan on it.

A. Dulgarian: Either that or if the road can't handle that traffic then something needs to be done.

T. Hamilton: My other item is, do you have a rendering of the building here?

R. Winglovitz: Yes we do.

T. Hamilton: The coloring, the block work and so forth, what is the back going to look like?

R. Winglovitz: The coloring of the building will be carried around to the back.

T. Hamilton: Okay.

G. Lake: Is there anybody from the Public who would like to comment on this application at this time?

MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 7:40 P.M. made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by A. Dulgarian.

VOTING AYE: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann, G. Monaco

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

G. Lake: Let's go through Mr. McGoey's comments. Do you have any problems with them at this point?

R. Winglovitz: Ed Smith had asked that if there were further questions to contact him directly. He was not going to put it in writing.

G. Lake: You did work that out with Mr. Smith?

R. Winglovitz: Yes. We've had several meetings already.

P. Hines: The sewer line is where it is shown?

R. Winglovitz: Yes.

G. Lake: The detention pond?

R. Winglovitz: We did file the agreements regarding maintenance of the detention pond.

R. Rich: For the record, I would like leave these here which are copies of both agreements as well as the cards that show the recording information.

T. Hamilton: Is there a copy for our Attorney to review it?

R. Rich: They are already recorded.

T. Hamilton: Did our Attorney review these agreements? That's what usually happens.

G. Barone: If you want me to review it, I can.

G. Lake: I think what happens is Mr. Patenaude gets that and then he sends it to wherever.

R. Winglovitz: The applicant should contribute for the traffic signal. There was a traffic study done. I think it was 1989 for all the sites involved in Quickway Industrial Park. As part of that study each site has a mitigation fee to pay based on when they get their Certificate of Occupancy. I'm not sure what the exact trigger is. We're committed to pay that fee in accordance with that.

G. Lake: So, you don't have a problem with that?

R. Winglovitz: No.

G. Lake: The impact on Turner Drive? Have you had a conversation with Mr. Patenaude on this? I think the Board did ask you to go back and talk to him.

R. Winglovitz: I've had several conversations with him. He still has the same position that I think is reiterated in here. We have our position at this point.

G. Lake: So, nothing has been done. We have nothing from Dan either in our files.

R. Winglovitz: We have no problem with item #5 which is the monumentation.

G. Lake: Back to the Board.

A. Dulgarian: I'm not happy with the site cover ratio but it meets our current law. I know that really needs to be amended but other than that Dick's comment on Turner Drive I think that's a strong point and if this road can't handle that type of traffic then how can we continue.

G. Lake: I've been on it a couple of times. It's in an industrial area where it should have been built to industrial specifications and we did accept it. It is a Town road at this point.

P. Hines: I think it's an issue. I would suggest that the applicant meet with Dan Patenaude to work out some resolution to this. Obviously it is a Town road which was accepted in the year 200 but I don't know whether they anticipated the use of this site. There are several multi-uses allowed in the PID zone. This is a 158,000 square foot warehouse with I think twenty six loading docks proposed. I think that's the reason for the concern. I don't know that they are requiring any improvements but they do want the applicant to take a look at the pavement.

G. Barone: You went through a SEQRA review process that required further studies or not that were done in 1989 and 1998 when the road was done. We can require a further analysis.

G. Lake: I don't know if you want to go that far. I think you should work this out between you and Mr. Patenaude. I don't know what else to tell you at this point.

R. Winglovitz: I understand.

G. Lake: If you want we can table it and put you back on when you straighten it out.

R. Winglovitz: I understand what you are saying. I will talk to my client and we will get in touch with Dan and see what we can work out.

G. Lake: We will table it. The Public Hearing is closed. That puts us under a time frame. Do you waive that time frame?

R. Winglovitz: Actually could we be put on, we have sixty two days.

G. Lake: I realize that.

R. Winglovitz: It's only a conversation I thin with Dan. So, could we put on a meeting in April? It's the only issue left to be resolved.

G. Lake: We will put you on April 3, 2002 and let's get a letter back between you and Mr. Patenaude to this Board. We are held up on this one issue again.

R. Winglovitz: I understand.

TABLED. To return on April 3, 2002.

2. SPENCER - SITE PLAN - East Main Street (50-1-9.11) #018-002

M. Siemers: We are proposing a commercial building. There is already an existing building on County Highway 67 on a .46 plus or minus parcel. The site conforms to all the bulk requirements and the zoning requirements. There is an existing County entrance that we are going to utilize. We are going to widen it a little bit. The number of parking spaces requirements is four. The client wanted a little extra so we provided eight. The existing building is going to be utilized and it conforms.

A. Dulgarian: Nothing right now.

R. Carr: Are you proposing to have the driveway paved?

M. Siemers: Yes. It is going to be paved up to the line here where it says pavement gravel interface.

R. Carr: Right.

M. Siemers: It will be paved up to that line. The rest is going to be gravel.

R. Carr: Then it is going to be paved in the back where the proposed parking area is?

M. Siemers: No. It's going to be gravel all the way.

G. Lake: Excuse me. Did you have a work session with Mr. McGoey on this?

M. Siemers: I did not attend the work session. I do believe our client attended the work session and I was told that we had no comments.

P. Hines: There was a work session on October 22, 2001.

G. Lake: And you were told you didn't have to pave that at that work session?

M. Siemers: Again, I wasn't at the work session and I don't have the comments from the work session.

P. Hines: Typically any parking areas are required to be paved.

G. Lake: Right. I know there is a cutoff.

P. Hines: When you look at the plans there is a line here that says pavement gravel interface. I think that's the existing condition but it is labeled as proposed pavement. If in fact the whole thing is to be paved, we need a detail of that.

R. Carr: That was the first thing I had was the grade going down that gravel driveway. The other thing is the parking appears really close to the road. It seems to have a pretty tight turn into that first parking spot.

M. Siemers: Right.

R. Carr: Looking at it here, you are going to have a proposed walkway. You will have to have some stairs going up which would change the elevation from the back of the building. It just seems there is a lot of stuff that isn't really clear on the Site Plan.

G. Luenzmann: I don't have any questions.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Just the rest of Dick's comments.

A. Dulgarian: That road going down there suffers from serious erosion. If you just paved part of that and your clientele or your employees are going to use that back lot, it's terrible. It would have to be blacktopped the entire way. Also, there should be a right-of-way mentioned on here. I don't see anything for the right-of-way for the back property.

P. Hines: There is an easement there.

A. Dulgarian: Okay.

G. Lake: As far as your blacktop goes, it seems to me we've always asked for blacktop.

M. Siemers: Okay.

G. Lake: On your ramp down, does that meet the handicap regulations?

M. Siemers: You're talking about the proposed walkway. I'm going to have to look into that for you.

G. Lake: You may want to check with the Building Department to find what the specifications are on that.

A. Dulgarian: Is there any way to get more of that parking gravel back also?

P. Hines: That first parking space needs to be ten feet off of the property line. It doesn't appear to be. It may have to be modified. There's room in the back for additional parking.

G. Lake: Dick's comments. I know you said you didn't get a copy. Can you solve his comments and square them away?

P. Hines: I think if he addresses these and comes back to a work session he should be okay.

G. Lake: Mr. Siemers, you weren't at the work session for this?

M. Siemers: No.

G. Lake: It might be easier to table this and get you back to a work session so you can handle these concerns.

M. Siemers: Okay.

G. Lake: Are you going to waive the sixty two day time frame?

M. Siemers: Yes.

Tabled. Applicant waives sixty two day time frame.

3. K-MART @ ORANGE PLAZA - SITE PLAN REVISION - Route 211 East/Dunning Road (50-2-5) #019-002

CANCELLED.

4. BECKER AUTO SALES/REPAIR - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Route 211 East (31-1-22.1) #033-001

D. Yanosh: I am the surveyor for the project.

G. Lake: Do you want to give us a history of what you've done here?

D. Yanosh: On the latest comments the biggest issue was the State Department of Transportation access to our site. We did get a letter from the Department of Transportation on February 13, 2002 that they reviewed my plans and everything has come up to nothing. They've signed off on the access and the drainage location. All the drainage from Route 211, in the beginning we were going to have some in-ground drainage storage in the front of the property. We've changed that now. Everything is going to flow to the back of the property away from Route 211. We've shown screening. We took care of the lighting problem that he had. The lighting itself shines to the front of the building, to the right and the rear of the building. There is no proposed lighting on either side facing the two residences next door. The main one will be in the front where if there are any used cars out front that are for sale, it will shine on them, security reasons in the back of the building. There is no other access into the building except in the front and back. We have received letters from the neighbors and they're willing to work with some type of fence along the lands of Graham and in the code it calls for the height and size is determined by the Planning Board. One of the comments from the changing of some of the trees to Norway Spruces and Austrian Pines. We can show some more along with a fence to help screen the house over that way. The maple trees that she's looking at before, they're more of a decorative one in the front to give it a little bit of a break. They are not an issue of screening.

G. Lake: Dan, you are in what zone?

Continued