TOWN OF WALLKILL
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
APRIL 17, 2002

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

MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Monaco

OTHERS PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey

1. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING - MCKEE - ZONE CHANGE REQUEST R2 to PID - Route 17K

G. Lake: Informational Public Hearing started at 7:35 P.M.

R. Smith: I'm here this evening on behalf of the McKee family. I have packets I gave the Board at the last meeting but I don't know if all the Board members are here.

G. Lake: I believe everybody got them.

R. Smith: The McKee family collectively own six tax parcels which comprise of approximately three hundred twenty acres located on Route 17K at Exit 116, actually fronting on Route 17, fronting on the exit ramps, fronting on Route 17K, backing to the west on the Shawangunk Kill and the County border, back in to the north on the town line and on the east, Stone Schoolhouse Road. Five of those tax parcels are zoned PID. The one parcel which is tax parcel 44 is zoned R2. The McKee's have petitioned the Town to change that zone from the R2 to the PID to conform with the surrounding properties that they own. They are now working on a use design of that property and want to collectively have it zoned the same so they can design one design for the whole property. We did some historical research to try to gather what the background of the property is, when it was zoned, why it was zoned and we were able to with the help of the Town Clerk come up with some background. In 1963 when the Town first had its first zoning ordinance all of those parcels including tax parcel 44 was zoned M-I, Manufacturing Industrial. We were able to trace that up through 1969 and in those packets it would be exhibit A7" is the 1963 zoning map which shows the property zoned M-I. We were able to trace it up through the archives and found a 1969 and there's a 1969 zoning map in the packet under exhibit A8" and it was still zoned M-I. In 1969 the Town had hired Raymond May & Associates to do an evaluation of the town wide zoning and master plan. Among the recommendations that the town consultants made was the

Establishment of the PID zone identifying those properties around interchanges that should have specific classification of uses and specific requirements with regard to the regulations in the zoning ordinance. When they made that recommendation, the recommendation at the time and in exhibit A9" was for all of the property that is now what is now the McKee property, all of it and including one parcel that is not a McKee parcel which is owned by the Johnsons and the lands across the street running all the way up to and including the Youngs farm and then both sides all the way around Exit 115 and then up Tarbell Road and a short way up Goshen Turnpike. All of that is zoned PID. When the town enacted the zoning July 14, 1971 it did zone all of that PID with the exception of this one corner block. When we inquired and asked some people and got a couple of sources as to why that was not zoned PID. There were a couple of sources that suggested that the owner at the time had an interest in developing it residentially, specifically the suggestion was that they wanted to develop a mobile home park which is permitted in the R-2 zone and is still permitted. Therefore to accommodate the desire of the owner at that time that they stopped the PID line at that property line and left those parcels R-2. We were able since the last meeting to find one map that seems to confirm this and it was just a stoke of luck that we found this. This was in a study that was done for some other property and it actually shows that parcel being zoned ATC@, Trailer Court. I'm not even sure if it was just a suggestion or if it actually was a zone change. This is not a town map. It shows the PID zone, it shows the R-2 zone and it just shows that one parcel as TC so it would seem to confirm the reasoning at the time in 1971 why that was done. This map was done in the early 1970's. What we're requesting is that the property be zoned PID for two reasons. One, we want to design the use of the property, doing the engineering and design work now so that it is consistent and that's one comprehensive plan. Additionally we want to not have any residential development commingled with what otherwise would be the PID zoning. PID does not permit typical residential zoning use in the zoning. There is by it's very nature a buffer that runs parallel with Stone Schoolhouse Road and is actually a manmade buffer with the monument with some additional wetlands and bodies of water. This lineal wetlands which is a spring that drains down toward the Shawangunk creates a nature buffer. On the zoning map it actually identifies it as a special environmental zone so there is special criteria. That ends up being a very natural buffer from Stone Schoolhouse Road to the outside of that buffer is more than five hundred feet. There is that natural buffer between what would be PID and then bound to the R-2 zone before it goes into the RA zone. The way it is now you could have what the town has experienced is end up having a commercial development here and then right next to it residential or have residential and then there's some commercial development. What we're suggesting and it makes more sense to design this as originally suggested by the town consultant with a use in conformity with the PID zone and have this parcel and the balance

of it and then let this area in here be the nature buffer between the PID zone and what be the adjoining residential zone.

G. Lake: Before I go to the Board, if anyone wants to speak on this please fill out the blue card. I will go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: I'll reserve my questions for after the Public Hearing.

P. Owen: I will do the same.

R. Carr: The same.

G. Luenzmann: I'm going to reserve my comments.

T. Hamilton: The reasoning for that lot the way it is drawn now is like you said. That's the same information that I had received, that the land owners at that time was looking to do something. That's why that piece was cut out of that. I just feel that PID would almost circle it and we would end up with more problems later because of that. I think it's a logical move and besides the road you can have that natural buffer.

G. Lake: Do we have anyone from the Public who wishes to speak on this application?

MOTION made to close the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by T. Hamilton.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

6 Ayes

A. Dulgarian: I do not have a problem with this being all PID. I just have a couple of questions. The wetlands that exist there, the creek obviously is some sort of Federal wetlands. What about the man made lake? Is that something that can be altered?

R. Smith: It probably can be because under recent court rulings, isolated land man made specifically could be re-claimed. Whether it would or not it is kind of a natural drainage given the density of the site. There is plenty of room to develop here. This might actually be a natural drainage basin. To answer your question there is the possibility, not a guarantee, that this will be altered. This has already been determined to be Federal wetlands. This has all the classifications. Because it is man made, it is possible that it could be altered. The Town also has a strict ordinance in the environmental zone that runs parallel with the Federal wetlands. I do have a map of the wetlands if that's helpful.

A. Dulgarian: My only concern is that with the creek you really can't do any off site wetland mitigating. With the lake, if that is just a hole from mining and it's filled in and the runoff is led to the creek then it doesn't really matter.

G. Lake: I would rather see what they would do. It might be worth to keep it for looks to keep it. They have to come back with that any way.

A. Dulgarian: For the Site Plan. My last question is do you have a specific use in mind for this or is this something that is going on speculation?

R. Smith: What we are doing now is the base line engineering. Surveys, topographies, and we've had prospects who have been interested in the site but we have no actual commitment yet but we're doing the work ahead of time to gather all this information including the wetlands delineations and all that so that when we have a specific user we can give them the data. Part of that process is what we're doing here tonight is bringing all the zoning into conformity with a use plan.

A. Dulgarian: Do you have it sooner if you accomplish this?

R. Smith: No actual commitments. Several have indicated to be interested.

A. Dulgarian: Are we talking distribution, an office or what type of. . .

R. Smith: The odds are given the location, given the characteristic of the site, and given

what's transpired in our general commercial market area it's more likely to be some kind of distribution.

P. Owen: You mentioned about the buffer being four to five hundred feet in its widest area.
R. Smith: Yes.

P. Owen: What about the narrowest area?

R. Smith: The narrowest area is right off of the corner here and it's still two hundred fifty feet from the road to the back side of what would be the wetlands and three hundred feet to the back side of what would be the Town environmental district. The narrowest point is about the size of a football field. The widest point not including the lake you've got two football fields and with the lake you have about one thousand feet. I'm only surmising that the plan would be to leave the lake intact. It doesn't make sense. There is so much bulk land of three hundred twenty acres. We can only cover thirty to forty percent maximum for the building. You can fit all that in here and there is no reason to disturb the wetlands.

P. Owen: Those are two separate lots. What is the detail of the plan?

R. Smith: All six lots. That's the purpose of doing this so that the project can be designed on one parcel. The McKee's just recently secured. This was a two tax parcels that was under separate ownership. It could all be designed as one parcel.

T. Hamilton: One zone.

R. Smith: One zone. It is a good chance it could end up being one owner or one user. That's a real possibility.

R. Carr: It makes sense to avoid having the conflicts of a residential area right next door to a commercial area. My only concern is that is Federal wetlands? Is there a possibility that it can be transferred or mitigated in the future? That would be my concern.

R. Smith: You can't move a stream. There is really no place to do this. Is it possible? The stream has areas where it widens out several hundred feet wide where the wetlands are. Could you encroach on that and mitigate? There's a procedure to go through that. The owner has so much land here I can't imagine anybody to do it. The stream I don't believe can be mitigated. It's pretty much in place.

G. Lake: That would come back in with the Site Plan any way.

R. Smith: The Town does have the foresight even though it is Federal wetlands, the Town has created around all the streams an environmental protection area.

G. Luenzmann: I think it is a good idea. It makes sense to make the property PID. I don't have a problem with it.

T. Hamilton: I think that if and when it does come back to us we can always ask to keep that buffer. I have no problem with this.

G. Lake: I have to agree with the rest of the Board. It is a massive piece of land. It is pretty flat at the top toward that little knoll. It gives us the chance to avoid future conflicts between residential and commercial. Besides that, it has a massive buffer zone.

D. McGoey: My technical comments recommends that parcel 45.2 be added. It is a small sliver that sits in the middle. Do you know whether the property owner?

R. Smith: They are here this evening. Mr. & Mrs. Johnson.

D. McGoey: Are they for or against having it PID?

R. Smith: Their property?

D. McGoey: Yes.

R. Smith: We talked about it and I would rather they answer because everything we talked about here and some of the kind of things that would happen on the adjoining property and their property and I also explained to them about the ultimate impact down the road for their property.

G. Lake: Can we even consider that without the proper applications?

D. McGoey: Yes. It's just a recommendation to the Town Board only.

Mrs. Johnson: My question is really how it would affect our taxes and how would it affect our property value.

G. Lake: As it would affect you right now, you're there. So, I wouldn't think it would affect you in any way except you would be going from one zone to the next. The taxes, I can't answer that because I don't know. Mr. Barone or Mr. McGoey might know that answer.

G. Barone: It wouldn't have an impact on your taxes specifically because you're not doing anything different with your property. Only if you were to improve your property by adding additional structures, upgrading your property then you will be re-assessed and taxed accordingly. If you leave it the way you are then what ever happens to this property will have no impact specifically on your taxes base other than what it has on everybody's tax base.

Mrs. Johnson: If we did agree to PID it wouldn't change my tax base?

G. Barone: You don't have an agricultural exemption or anything of that nature?

Mrs. Johnson: No.

G. Lake: What it does do if you decided to get into commercial ventures on that property then there's a process you go through that would allow you to do so. Does that answer you questions pretty well?

Mrs. Johnson: Yes.

Recommend to the Town Board to change zone to PID on parcels 45.2 & 44 made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by A. Dulgarian.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

6 Ayes

2. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - NEXTEL OF N.Y. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Howells Road (21-1-20.31) #051-001

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:59 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 17th day of April, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the application of Nextel of New York, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Communications, One North Broadway, White Plains, New York 20601 for approval of Special Use Permit and Site Plan for a Telecommunications Facility at 255 Howells Road (Cross Street: New Vernon Road) under Section 249-39 and 249-40 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

G. Lake: Give us a brief description.

S. Mandelbaum: I'm an Attorney with the law firm of Snyder & Snyder and I'm here on behalf of Nextel of New York, Inc. who does business as Nextel Communications. The proposal before you is for final Special Permit and Site Plan approval for a wireless telecommunication facility at 255 Howells Road on a parcel of approximately twenty acres and is transected by Howells Road. It's across from the Con Ed right-of-way and currently has public utilities, Orange & Rockland lines across the property as well. The application has been pending since last year. We did receive a variance last September for the setback from the closest residence. A thousand feet from the tower is required under your code. The closest residence is actually seven hundred ninety two feet but we were granted that variance last September. We had filed an application in November with this Board. We appeared in December and February and met with Mr. McGoey for several work sessions. On February 20th, as you recall a Public Hearing was scheduled for this evening. The proposal consists of a one hundred fifty foot monopole which is a flag pole light steel structure with twelve panel antennas at the top of the pole which are about forty eight inches or four feet high, six inches wide and about eight and a half inches deep. We are also proposing a two hundred forty square foot pre-fabricated equipment shelter at the base of the pole within a secured fence enclosure. The proposal was referred to the Telecommunications consultants for the Town who issued a final report dated April, 2002 a couple days ago. That report confirms that Nextel does have a need for the site to cover this portion of the Town of Wallkill. The site fulfills that need at the proposed location and height.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board before I go to the Public Hearing.

A. Dulgarian: Nothing.

P. Owen: I have nothing.

R. Carr: I have nothing.

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Not at this time.

G. Lake: You said you received a variance?

S. Mandelbaum: Yes.

G. Lake: It is the same property owner? You are seven hundred fifty feet from a house. Is it the same property owner?

S. Mandelbaum: The way the code is written, it says you cannot be within a thousand feet of a residence on another parcel. There is a home on the property which is approximately six hundred fifty feet away but under your code the variance was for the parcel to the rear of the lot away from Howells Road.

L. Ingrassia Jr.: I'm a Fire Commissioner for the Howells Fire District. This tower falls within our jurisdiction. I had made a connection with Nextel on two occasions and spoke to who they said was their planning and zoning representative in regards that in the event that the tower was approved, would the Howells Fire District be able to put a mast on that tower for our encoding capability. Basically what that does, that would enhance our paging capabilities to alert our volunteers in the event of an emergency. We could also provide announcements our of our fire station and we could provide emergency dispatch out of our fire station in the event the 911 center went down. Currently we dispatch off of our fire station. This would enhance our capabilities. My only concern is that on two occasions I asked for a written commitment from Nextel and we did not get that. I received a verbal and the woman I spoke to told me that Mr. Mandelbaum would be here and he would address our concerns whether or not we would be able to locate a mast on that antenna. In the event we were able to locate a mast on that antenna with a guarantee that we would have space and also in their generator back up building that our district would go on record stating that this would be a benefit to the area. In the event that they cannot provide that for us, will we will go on record and say that it will be a detriment to the community, absolutely not but we would like to see our needs met with space on their antenna. We also had spoken about negotiations to have Nextel type units which I'm familiar everyone is familiar with basically for the point to point communication. We do not have the luxury of what they call ultra high frequency radios and basically what those high frequency radios will do is they will penetrate buildings. We don't have that luxury in our fire district. Some fire districts do but we don't. The Nextel type units on a point to point basis would enhance communication between our officers, our fire ground, etc. Basically if those concerns of ours can be met, we would go on record saying that we think this would be a benefit to the community and would enhance our communication capability but on the flip side if they cannot meet our request, we're not going to go on record saying that it's a detriment to the community because we feel that it would be good for everybody but we would like the benefit from having it within our jurisdiction.

Continue