TOWN OF WALLKILL
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MARCH 20, 2002
MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, G. Monaco, P.
Owen
MEMBERS
ABSENT: T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann
OTHERS
PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey
1. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING - VIRAG - ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
- PID to RA - Goshen Turnpike (1-1-35)
G.
Lake: Informational Public Hearing started at 7:32 P.M. At this
time I am going to turn this segment to Mr. Dulgarian and I will
have to excuse myself from this part of the meeting.
A.
Dulgarian: Please come up, state you name, and tell us want you
want to do.
E.
Virag: I have a piece of property on Goshen Turnpike and I am
trying to get a zone change from the PID district to make it residential.
I am trying to conform with some of the existing zoning that's
on the road. Basically all the houses prior to where the house
is from our property are all residential and everything behind
it is in the PID. I am looking to build residential. I have a
map to show you where the houses are located and the piece of
property where the house exists is the furthest most portion of
the property. Everything adjacent and further up is residential
on both sides of the road. We do have a list of all those. I do
know that the concern is it is in the PID. Mr. McGoey did address
it and that is falls adjacent to all the property before it into
residential is what I would like you gentlemen to consider.
A.
Dulgarian: Now, you are surrounded by PID and it is currently
PID?
E.
Virag: There is a house on the 6.8 acre parcel. It was pre-conforming.
It was four lots. It was changed about three years ago.
A.
Dulgarian: The zone was changed?
E.
Virag: The zone was not changed. The tax map was changed. There
is an existing residence on the property.
A. Dulgarian: Is lot 37.2 RA or PID? Is that where the house is?
E.
Virag: Yes it is. There is a house on that parcel.
A.
Dulgarian: Dick, correct me if I am wrong, there are houses existing
there but it is zoned PID?
D.
McGoey: Right.
A.
Dulgarian: So, it's not a residential district but there just
happens to be houses.
D.
McGoey: There are residential houses on some of these PID parcels
and there are residential houses on the RA parcels.
A.
Dulgarian: Do they predate zoning?
D.
McGoey: Probably but I can't say for sure.
E.
Virag: I do know that there was an issue with the one house across
the street at one point. I don't know what the extent is. Whether
it is in the PID district right now, it's all residential throughout
there.
A.
Dulgarian: Any questions?
G.
Monaco: No.
R.
Carr: No.
P.
Owen: I don't have any.
A.
Dulgarian: Is there anyone from the Public who wishes to speak
on this matter?
MOTION
to close this PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:41 P.M. made by P. Owen and
seconded by R. Carr.
VOTING AYE: A. Dulgarian, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, P. Owen
MOTION
CARRIED. 4 AYES
G.
Monaco: In looking at that area it seems that the use of that
area even though it is PID should remain.
R.
Carr: My feeling is that while there are different uses in the
area it is PID. I am hesitant in recommending changing it to RA.
E.
Virag: I am going to build two houses. We are not talking twenty
houses. We are talking cutting the same piece of property.
R.
Carr: I am still opposed.
P.
Owen: That area has houses up and down that road. How they got
that way, I don't know but to have a couple more houses on that
road I think probably fits into the character of the neighborhood.
I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. In fact, I would rather
see a couple of houses there than some other type of use.
A.
Dulgarian: All we're trying to accomplish tonight is to send a
recommendation to the Town Board. My feeling on this is you really
have to have a substantial reason to change the zone. It was thought
out at the time when all the zones were set. I know we are having
a comprehensive review now and there is going to be serious consideration
given to which areas are going to be zoned what. I don't know
of any substantial reason why this zone needs to be changed and
for that reason, I'm opposed to it. Let's call the roll.
G.
Monaco: Yes
R.
Carr: No.
P.
Owen: Yes.
A.
Dulgarian: No.
Recommend to the Town Board for DENIAL of this zone change request.
G.
Monaco, P. Owen 2 AYES
R.
Carr, A. Dulgarian 2 NAYS
G.
Lake, ABSTAINED.
2. JOHNSON - LOT LINE CHANGE - East Main Street/Schutt Road (50-2-51,
52) #010-002
R.
Ferris: I am representing the applicant.
G.
Lake: Do you want to tell us what you want to do?
R.
Ferris: There are two existing lots which are located on the corner
of Schutt Road and East Main Street. One has an existing delicatessen
and a veterinary shop in it. The other lot is a vacant lot with
no improvements other than there is an existing driveway that
enters on East Main Street. The owner owns both parcels. They
want to change the boundary between the two lots so that the existing
driveway is on the lot that has the improvements on it. It would
be left with a right-of-way so that lot #2 when it's approved
has access on to East Main Street where the existing easements
are. It's existing. It was approved in 1990 for two lots. One
with the existing building and one with a proposed residence but
it was only there to show build ability. It's a commercial lot
now. What they would like to do is move the boundary from where
it was approved in 1990 and follow what was the easement line
for the existing driveway and make that the boundary between the
two parcels so that the existing driveways on the same parcel
as the buildings are on.
A.
Dulgarian: I'm just trying to follow their thinking.
P.
Owen: What I see here is what appears to be a stone wall. I would
think that you would follow that stone wall to divide the two
lots.
R.
Ferris: The original subdivision didn't follow that wall.
P. Owen: I understand that but what I'm saying is that it would
be a natural boundary instead of having a lot line moved to just
this portion instead of moving the whole thing on a line basically
matching the stone wall.
R.
Ferris: There is a wall there. It's an old farm wall that is not
in great shape. This is a commercial zoned area so by reducing
the lot area here, it reduces the usability for that site.
Adding the additional area to this lot really is not going to
make any additional use for that parcel.
P.
Owen: What about straightening the line over a little bit more?
G.
Lake: Is that a driveway that will be shared eventually?
R.
Ferris: Yes.
G.
Lake: So it is still going to be a shared driveway for both parcels?
R.
Ferris: Correct.
A.
Dulgarian: You're not looking for an additional curb cut for lot
#2?
R.
Ferris: Lot #2 had the curb cut approval originally.
G.
Lake: I think we asked for it back then. We wanted to make sure
there was a double way in at least on that lot #2.
R.
Carr: I just don't understand why the lot line where it is paved
isn't extended.
G.
Lake: It was designed to share for both lots, is that correct?
R.
Ferris: Yes.
G.
Lake: When they come back we can make that a guarantee.
R.
Ferris: This is the way it was originally approved.
G.
Lake: Are you going to give lot #2 a new easement to use that?
R.
Ferris: Let me check with the Attorney.
G. Monaco: That would be my only issue.
A.
Dulgarian: I didn't understand why if lot #1 had an easement then
why change it to lot #2 but it's the owners prerogative and I
don't really see a problem with it.
R
Ferris: They want to offer lot #2 for sale.
G.
Lake: Okay.
R.
Ferris: And, they want to keep lot #1. They want to be able to
do the maintenance on the driveway.
G.
Lake: How about Dick's comments?
R.
Ferris: The owners and the applicant are the same people for both
parcels. The right-of-ways to cross lot #2 were set up originally
on the 1990 subdivision.
D.
McGoey: For what purpose?
R.
Ferris: A common driveway access.
D.
McGoey: Will that common driveway access still exist between lot
#1 and lot #2?
R.
Augello: I'm the Attorney for the applicant.
D.
McGoey: My question is will lot #2 have the right to use the driveway
on lot #1?
R.
Augello: Yes.
D.
McGoey: The map will have to be revised to reflect that.
G.
Lake: I think that was our concern up here.
R.
Augello: Let's say for example a purchaser wants to buy lot #2
but I may not want an easement over your driveway. I may ask for
a driveway on the other side.
G.
Lake: And, at that time when he comes back in for Site Plan, it
would be handled at that time. Right now we don't want to see
that easement disappear.
R. Augello: No. Not at all. We understand that a prospective buyer
may want that easement.
G.
Lake: We don't know how the County is going to react. There are
things we don't know yet
R.
Augello: We intend to give an easement over that driveway.
R.
Ferris: The access, there is a good location which was previously
approved down where the easement is other than the existing driveway
which has adequate site distances.
G.
Lake: When was that approved?
R.
Ferris: It existed in 1990.
G.
Lake: Okay.
R.
Ferris: And it hasn't been changed. There's no physical improvements
on lot #2 other than the driveway that we are asking to add to
lot #1. We will put a notation that this parcel is being annexed
to lot #1 for verification and there are a couple of concrete
monuments we still have to place if the Board approves the plan.
G.
Lake: Dick, did you have more comments on this?
D.
McGoey: No.
A.
Dulgarian: No.
P.
Owen: I just have a question on this little portion on lot #2.
I'm not an engineer but it is unfortunate that lot #1 wants to
sell lot #2 and take care of things and that's the reason why
they want to move the lot line over. Why not include that little
portion of the pavement?
R.
Ferris: It is a very unusual staggered property line through there.
G.
Lake: Dick, do you have a problem with that?
D.
McGoey: Yes, because it is an encroachment.
G.
Lake: Can you take that out or can you move the line?
R. Augello: I guess what you are asking is to move this line over
a few feet.
R.
Carr: Right.
R.
Ferris: We can move the line back.
R.
Carr: Nothing.
G.
Monaco: Nothing.
G.
Lake: I agree with Mr. Dulgarian in that it is pretty straight
forward.
MOTION
for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION subject to Dick's review of right-of-way
and line change 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
MOTION
for a LOT LINE CHANGE subject to Dick's review made by A. Dulgarian
and seconded by R. Carr.
VOTING
AYE: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, G. Monaco, P. Owen
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
3. ROSSI - SITE PLAN - Route 211 East (31-1-80) #014-002
R.
Ferris: I am representing the applicant. It is an existing parcel
with a kind of AL@ shape office building. He wants to convert
part of the building to retail.
A.
Dulgarian: It's an existing building. I would love to see when
people come back to us to do a little bit more landscaping. I
don't know if it is appropriate in this particular case because
there is some now but it's not what we're asking for these days.
G.
Lake: I think we can ask him to at least look at before it's signed
off.
A. Dulgarian: Everybody who comes back we have been upgrading
the landscaping a little bit.
G.
Lake: This is right next to Weinert's, correct?
R.
Ferris: That's correct. There's quite a bit of planting around
the building all the way around. There's not much more area where
we could do more.
G.
Lake: I think it could use a little ATLC@.
P.
Owen: I have nothing.
R.
Carr: Nothing.
G.
Monaco: Nothing.
A.
Dulgarian: He can't come out any further and what he has needs
to be cleaned up. I will take that back. I don't have any problem.
G.
Lake: Dick's comments. Do you have any problems with any of them?
R.
Ferris: The first one is just a statement of what we are asking
for. We're adding one additional parking space to conform to the
code and to include a dumpster.
G.
Lake: If everybody is happy I will look for a motion.
MOTION
for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION subject to D. McGoey's comments made
by A. Dulgarian and seconded by G. Monaco.
VOTING
AYE: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, G. Monaco, P. Owen
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
Continued
