3. STORAGE USA - SITE PLAN REVISION - Ballard Road (78-1-82) #009-003

M. Sandor: I am with MJS Engineering. This Site Plan was reviewed and approved last year. The problems that we had was that when the inspector came out for site review of the improvements, it wasn’t clear which was the Phase 1 or the Phase 2 improvements. I will show you on the map. It wasn’t the expansion to the existing building, which is here. That would be the Phase 2. The landscaping along the fencing on Ballard Road would be Phase 1. That would be now. There is an island with landscaping and metal fencing in the front. That would also be Phase 1. The landscaping along Route 84 as well as the landscaping in the rear would be Phase 1. What we would like to do is to have in Phase 2 the installation of the fence here off the back. Obviously we would not have the outdoor storage of vehicles during Phase 1 as noted in your Engineer’s comments. Another item, the placing of grass in the existing loading dock area, that would be installed during Phase 2. We also would like to substitute instead of a chain link fence in the front here, to utilize a black wrought iron fence six feet high. I have a detail to show you. On our detail for the fence we actually show the slats in that fence. That’s something we do not want to have. Just have a six foot high chain link fence. These are some of the clarifications that we are coming back to the Board for and it actually explains exactly what is Phase 1 and Phase 2.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board.

P. Owen: Nothing right now.

R. Carr: I’m not that familiar with the project.

G. Luenzmann: I remember this whole project and as long as Dick’s comments are addressed I have no other comments.

G. Monaco: Nothing at this time.

T. Hamilton: You mentioned the slats. I think the main reason we’re looking for slats are so we don’t look through the fence. I’ve been by the Town of Ramapo in Rockland County, the Highway Garage and the Highway facility has a chain link fence and they have these inserts that look like pine needles. Let me tell you, the fence looks great because you can’t see through it. It’s not like looking at those flimsy little slats. Maybe you can look into that.

M. Sandor: Along Route 84 there is a fence and there are no slats in it. What we’re requesting of the Board is let’s put a nice decorative black wrought iron fence in the front but in all the other areas where we do have fence just leave it as just plain chain link fence.

T. Hamilton: We ask for the slats so we don’t see the vehicles parked by the fence.

D. McGoey: Right.

T. Hamilton: We didn’t want to see those. That’s the reason.

M. Sandor: Actually if we do have vehicles they would be in the back here and I thought that’s the reason why we had to put in landscaping back in here.

D. McGoey: That was both.

G. Lake: I was going to say, you said in the back. I thought we asked for the front.

M. Sandor: We also do have it in the front as well.

G. Lake: Really the fence issue and the landscaping issue. The only thing I’m going to say is I thought the only part of Phase 2 of this thing when you were here the last time was this addition. I do not recall this fence and the security part of it, especially it being a storage building now, being done in phases. The three-story proposed, I thought that was what you were talking about as far as Phase 2. As far as the fence not being done and the landscaping not being done especially in the front. It’s been a while since you’ve been here. I just never remember us saying the fence was going to be part of Phase 2. I know you have it down here as Phase 2 but I don’t remember that being at all part of it may Dick does.

D. McGoey: No it wasn’t.

G. Lake: I think that’s something you added. For the rest of the Board especially members that were here at the time, I don’t believe it was in the original agreement.

M. Sandor: No, I added that.

G. Lake: Okay. Basically my thing is you have come a long way. I don’t know if you’re up to the point where you’re renting over there yet. It’s coming along nicely. I’m going to look at the wrought iron fence and Mr. Hamilton has brought up an idea, alternate to it but I don’t think we would let any other storage place in Town doing the fencing in Phases and I don’t think I’m prepared to allow you to do phasing of the fencing. Are you guys happy about the phasing? Do you have comments on this?

D. McGoey: Comment #5. The signage that’s on the side of the building. Was that approved by the Building Inspector?

M. Sandor: No and I asked the client about that. That’s a banner and will come down.

D. McGoey: It shouldn’t have been put up.

T. Hamilton: That banner was up before they ever came to us for any approvals.

G. Lake: Do you have any problem with any of the other comments from Dick?

M. Sandor: No I don’t.

G. Lake: There are a couple questions here. The front fence, do you want to allow him to change it or stay with the original agreement?

P. Owen: My feeling is that I kind of like the wrought iron fence in the front.

T. Hamilton: In the front, yes.

P. Owen: It’s a nice addition to it.

G. Lake: Good.

T. Hamilton: The chain link around the back though I think he should probably . . .

P. Owen: As far as it being fenced in it should be secluded fencing.

G. Luenzmann: As far as fencing is concerned I think Mr. Hamilton has a good suggestion and I know those plastic inserts they do eventually look terrible.

M. Sandor: The fence is primarily looking to install the property and secure the outdoor storage of vehicles at the rear of the site.

G. Lake: I think, Mr. Luenzmann, what we’re talking about though instead of chain link in the front to go to the wrought iron fence in the front.

G. Luenzmann: I know. That is better in the front. The chain link fence after a while get to look pretty crappy.

P. Owen: In the back, there’s a lot of landscaping.

G. Luenzmann: I see it. It is just how it looks from the road and if it will be cut off by the landscaping.

M. Sandor: And that would be to the right of the building where the overpass is and you actually can’t see down there, that would also be chain link in the front. This would be primarily what you would see at that corner.

G. Lake: If you don’t have any further questions we need a motion to accept the modification to allow wrought iron fence across the front and to let Phase 2 be the dock area and the new fencing plan.

MOTION for Site Plan Modification for the wrought iron fence in the front be allowed as part of Phase 1 and the chain link fencing with slats in the back remain part of Phase 1 made by R. Carr and seconded by P. Owen.

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

4. WALLKILL MANOR APARTMENTS - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Silver Lake Scotchtown Road (50-1-1.2, 51-12-2) #051-002

A. Fusco: I’m the Engineer of record for Wallkill Manor Apartments. We have made some modifications to the plan previously in relationship to some of the fire department requirements. We added a template to make sure the curves were correct and things of that nature. We proceeded well into the final engineering with relationship to the storm water reports, water and sanitary sewer as well. We have identified that Second Avenue is going to be the main entrance to the facility. Hopefully now that the snow cover is off within the next week or so we will be having the Army Corps of Engineers verification of the wetlands and we also have an application in to them for the wetland crossing that is with the Second Street entrance. We had received permission previously from the Board for the Chairman to forward a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the Board’s preference was Second Avenue. I believe that it had gone out to you. If you wish I will forward another copy because I don’t know if it was exactly forwarded to the Army Corps. We are proceeding at this point and we would like to respectfully request that you identify yourselves as Lead Agency. We have set up a work shop meeting for April 21, 2003 at 3:00 P.M. to go over any scoping that’s necessary with the Planning Board Engineer. In addition to that, today I have had a conversation with John Collins Engineering with Phil Grealy in relationship to our participation in a joint traffic study. We are proceeding with that. We also would like to respectfully request that we move forward and identify with a Public Hearing so that we can move the project forward.

G. Lake: Dick, I’m not sure what your comment #1 is? He needs a Public Hearing for that?

D. McGoey: That is a major issue.

G. Lake: I realize that but wouldn’t that be under the Lead Agency?

D. McGoey: It would all come under SEQRA but I personally think we should get the SEQRA scoping down and then if we decide to hold the Public Hearing for SEQRA we can also do the Site Plan and Special Use Permit at the same night.

G. Lake: Okay. I was just wondering why because I know it was from First Street and all over the place and after the work sessions I thought this was the best for everybody involved.

D. McGoey: Yes I think it is too.

G. Lake: I thought I missed something.

D. McGoey: No.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board to see if they have any questions.

P. Owen: Nothing at this time.

R. Carr: Nothing at this time.

G. Luenzmann: I was just trying to locate it and I think I have it. It’s off of Silver Lake Scotchtown Road near Second Avenue.

A. Fusco: That’s correct.

G. Luenzmann: The only observation I have it’s a lot of density. I don’t know. Have you looked at it Mr. McGoey for density?

D. McGoey: We’ve been round and round on this for quite some time.

G. Luenzmann: Right off the top of my head it just looks like it’s too much for that type of neighborhood. I don’t know what you think.

D. McGoey: They’ve got all of their units in the front because they have wetlands. The calculations were according to the land.

A. Fusco: It does include all this vacant land of which a good portion of it is wetlands but it does meet the criteria under the bulk requirements.

G. Luenzmann: How big are these apartment buildings going to be? How many apartments are going to be in there?

A. Fusco: There are one hundred and four apartment units.

G. Luenzmann: All together?

A. Fusco: All together.

G. Luenzmann: My observation indicates a density problem.

A. Fusco: It does meet the bulk requirements as per the zone. Again it is clustered because we do have some restrictions on the site due to wetlands in other areas. There are some right-of way’s through there both by municipal and utility companies. It is a good cluster project but we will loose quite bit undeveloped or green areas. Some of it obviously is wetlands but again, it does meet the bulk requirements.

G. Lake: Dick, how many units did you say you have now?

A. Fusco: One hundred and four.

G. Lake: Didn’t we start at one hundred thirty four with this in the beginning?

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Lake: So in the work sessions we have knocked it down, I’m not disagreeing with you one way or the other, but it’s not like during the work sessions we did knock it down and we have gotten the emergency exit for another project. I just want you to know that we’ve been here and I don’t know if you remember that.

A. Fusco: You’re actually correct. Also one of the things we are doing is we’re also cooperating with the neighbors and swapping some easements so there aren’t duplications. We’re going to have to swap some water easements, sewer easements, drainage easements as well as access easements so that the projects grow nicely and have the appropriate utilities as well as emergency access.

G. Monaco: Nothing at this time.

T. Hamilton: We’re going to go through more of this through SEQRA?

G. Lake: Without a doubt. Tonight we’re just doing Lead Agency.

MOTION for the Planning Board to assume LEAD AGENCY made by P. Owen and seconded by G. Monaco.

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

5. WOLFE TOWING - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Bloomingburg Road (3-1-33.1) #115-002

G. Lake: Tell us what you want to do. We’re here tonight to set a Public Hearing for you also.

J. Wolfe: What my proposed use is, I want to use this office here on this lot for towing and storage. It’s basically for State Police or Town Police cars for storage. We have a total of ten parking spaces for vehicles as designated on the plan. We also added privacy links so you will not see any vehicles from any roadway including future I-86, Bloomingburg Road or the Exit 118 overpass.

G. Lake: This is where Blue Flame was?

J. Wolfe: Correct.

G. Lake: No more than ten vehicles, right?

J. Wolfe: That’s correct.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board. Do you have Dick’s comments?

J. Wolfe: Yes. We had a couple of work sessions.

D. McGoey: Did you get my latest comments for tonight’s meeting?

J. Wolfe: No I did not.

G. Lake: Is this just a copy of his particular map or has this been updated?

J. Wolfe: This is the updated.

D. McGoey: It’s been modified.

P. Owen: No questions.

R. Carr: Nothing outside of Dick’s comments.

G. Luenzmann: No, just Dick’s comments.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: The only thing is are you going to be able to have only ten vehicles in there?

J. Wolfe: Yes sir. I’ve been in the business for five years and most of the time if your vehicle is in an accident the insurance company basically takes care of it within five working days.
T. Hamilton: We’ve always had problems with the storage of vehicles. They always end up more than what they were approved for.

D. McGoey: One of my suggestions, item #5 is that the area be fenced entirely from your area with your cars so that the cars don’t all of sudden spread out over the site.

J. Wolfe: Right.

D. McGoey: So that there is one compound area for your vehicles. Do you have a problem with that?

J. Wolfe: It’s going to be hard to do that because if we back the vehicles in to the proposed area you can’t actually have a walled gate. I see what you’re saying.

Page 3