T. Downs: Independent Wireless One initially negotiated all the sites. What we do is, we build the sites and then we purchase them from them. So initially when they did all their diligence and everything on it, they were only worried about one tenant. We're not actually a cell phone carrier.

T. Hamilton: They were told to co-locate when they came before us.

A. Dulgarian: Yes but the questions we asked I believe were was the pole acceptable and I was.

T. Downs: It's built for a six carrier.

A. Dulgarian: Then not being familiar with wireless industries when you came to us we were looking at what the pole would carry not knowing that the base is as important as the pole is and that you also need enough space to do what ever carriers on the pole has to have.

T. Downs: Right.

A. Dulgarian: It was never presented to us that way. Who ever initially came to us with this you would think they would have to know what the requirements would be if you have a pole that carries six carriers.

T. Downs: Like I said when they initially did it they were just building it for themselves.

A. Dulgarian: We're trying to keep this as aesthetically acceptable as possible but by putting in a two-story structure is kind of like throwing it off a little bit.

G. Lake: How high is this going to be?

T. Downs: It will be twenty feet high.

J. Luenzmann: I know we have a lot of concerns about two-story structures and how it fits in.

D. McGoey: He has got it in there fence line to fence line with no room around it to maintain it.

T. Downs: Yes. Each end of the building will be on top of the fence.

D. McGoey: I really think they need to expand the compound.

T. Hamilton: Dick, how is this going to fit with the Building Department with two-stories?

D. McGoey: That's a good question. That's not our issue but

T. Hamilton: There are a lot of code changes once you add a second floor. There is a big difference on access and other things. They may also need an elevator.

T. Downs: Even though this is not a livable shelter?

G. Lake: I have no idea.

D. McGoey: It's a working station.

G. Lake: First of all you said you bought this. We did look at it when it was built for multi carriers. We ask everybody to do that. To say they only built for one. We got caught here just now. We thought we did a good job on that site.

D. McGoey: Yes. The ordinance does say that you have to be sized for co-location. Obviously the compound isn't sufficient.

T. Downs: I will agree with you there.

T. Hamilton: So then he doesn't meet the ordinance?

D. McGoey: That's a possibility.

G. Luenzmann: What would be the logical step here because this doesn't meet the requirements as I see it and it looks like somebody is going to have to go back and re-visit how large the base is in terms on the fenced in area and accommodate the number of users. That was our classification to begin with.

T. Downs: The base is a caisson design. It's not a spread footing and the base was put in for a six carrier site.

T. Hamilton: We approved the whole project. We didn't just approve the tower. We approved the whole project for co-location and it should fit what ever you need for co-location. Right now he doesn't meet our ordinance. He can't do it.

G. Lake: Do you have any problem with item #4 as far as doing the paving?

T. Downs: Paving what, the access or the street itself?

D. McGoey: From the edge of the road to the right-of-way line has to be paved.

T. Downs: From the edge of the road all the way into my compound?

D. McGoey: No. From the edge of the road to the right-of-way of the road which is probably twenty feet.

T. Downs: That wouldn't be a problem.

G. Lake: Item #6, the underground wires, you need that on the plans Dick?

D. McGoey: Yes. I don't know where they are going from whether they are going from the street in?

T. Downs: They're already in.

G. Lake: Would it help you to bring your engineer to the next meeting?

T. Downs: I could.

A. Dulgarian: Can we just find out if it needs to have a Public Hearing? If a Public Hearing isn't necessary then it is a different issue.

G. Lake: Mr. Barone?

G. Barone: There is no mandate that you have to have a Public Hearing on this application because of the size or significance of the project. It arguably is an accessory building.

A. Dulgarian: I thought an accessory building had to be accessory to something, to another structure. Is the tower a structure?

G. Barone: It arguably supports the tower that provides the support mechanism to the antennas on the tower. Without the tower being there, you would have no reason to have this building there. In order to put more carriers on the tower they need this building to do that.

A. Dulgarian: But for it to be accessory there are requirements such as how close to the structure, setbacks. All those would have to be met.

D. McGoey: We will straighten that out before the next meeting. Item #8 is an important issue also. Also item #7.

G. Barone: I actually left a message with Tectonic. I didn't have your contact number. For the next meeting you need to have written proof that the owner sensed your erecting this structure.

T. Downs: I sent them that one section on the form to have them sign it and send it over to you.

G. Lake: I think there are a couple of issues at this point. Obviously, you can tell from the Board that they don't want two-stories.

T. Downs: Yes.

G. Barone: Mr. Lake, what we need the applicant to do is to waive the time frame.

G. Lake: Right. Will you waive any time restraints from today?

T. Downs: We waive the time frame.

Tabled. Applicant waives the time frame.

6. WALLKILL PROFESSIONAL PLAZA - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT Bert Crawford Road/Maltese Drive (53-3-4,5 -50-1-56.22) #009-002

G. Bergman: I'm an Engineer for Eustance & Horowitz. I'm here representing the Wallkill Professional Plaza seeking a final Site Plan approval this evening. We did receive the latest comment letter.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Nothing yet.

P. Owen: Nothing right now.

R. Carr: Nothing right now.

G. Luenzmann: Not right now.

T. Hamilton: Nothing now.

G. Lake: Let's start with the comments.

G. Bergman: The first comment addresses the entrance on Maltese. We had discussed that previously. We did at the request of the Board I believe at the last meeting you did not only sign this but put an island in for right turn in and right turn out only. Maltese Drive is signed no left turns in as is the parking lot no left turns out. I'm not sure where we stand other than that on the site.

D. McGoey: My issue is that the design allows a very easy left hand turn on to Maltese into the site.

G. Bergman: One of the previous comments from the Fire Department was to widen the radius. We did widen those radius to allow for fire truck entrance.

D. McGoey: The radius is one thing.

G. Bergman: I'm not sure what design you're talking about but we can certainly look at that. We don't have a problem.

D. McGoey: You don't want to make it easy for someone to make a left turn. That design makes it very easy.

G. Lake: You will work that out with Dick?

G. Bergman: Absolutely. Item #2 has to do with the lot consolidation and we obviously will do that. We agreed to that before. In fact the plans note that they must be consolidated. It is note #1 on sheet #2. Item #3 has to do with an electric line crossing at the northeast corner of the property, the electric service for the Gibson house. That pole will be re-located outside the radius return. Once you re-locate that pole outside the radius return the wire service for that house will not cross.

D. McGoey: That's another issue. Item #3 is the electric line that crosses right through the middle.

G. Bergman: That is to be removed. That was a line for the prior trailer court. It's noted on the plan to be removed. Right-of-way monuments, Ken Carmichael did talk to the Town about the monuments. There's fourteen additional monuments because of all the jogs in the property line and does the Board really want to see a concrete monument in such a short distance. We show monuments at all the property corners and propose to do iron pins at all the jogs. If you want them all in, we will put them all in.

T. Hamilton: When it was written, it was written that way and how do you change that now?

G. Bergman: We have asked and successfully got in changed in the past. There are just so many in a short amount of space.

G. Lake: Where have you gotten that changed in the Town of Wallkill?

G. Bergman: I will have to ask Ken Carmichael. He put concrete monuments at the major corners and iron pins at everything in between.

D. McGoey: We've allowed the copper clad.

G. Bergman: I can do that.

D. McGoey: Those have been acceptable in place of the concrete monuments.

G. Bergman: Okay.

G. Lake: Why don't we have Dick tell us where he wants the concrete monuments and where he wants to copper clad.

G. Bergman: We show the monuments at the property corners. We can change all the iron pins to copper.

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Lake: Dick you will straighten that out then?

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Bergman: Item #5. I don't really have an answer. I didn't receive another letter.

D. McGoey: That's because the Fire Department didn't get a chance to look at the plans.

G. Lake: We will come back to that.

G. Bergman: Item #6 has to do with the landscape plan and I assume you mean at the rear of the building?

D. McGoey: No. Along Bert Crawford Road.

G. Bergman: I thought you meant at the rear. Item #7 the sewer lateral I did address. I didn't address the water. We inspected that water line and Merv and I physically went out there. We can't find the curb stop but the house is definitely served by public water. It is metered. We will check in the next couple of days to find out where that box is.

D. McGoey: I just want to make sure it doesn't cross.

G. Bergman: Merv says absolutely not. We will get our as-built's on that. We know where the meter is on the house. Item #8 a detail of curbing. We can give you that detail. That's not a problem.

G. Lake: The other thing, the Fire Department. We found out that you need to put a fire hydrant in there for them.

G. Bergman: Yes. We did.

G. Lake: Now, they would like to have one more space in the front of the building for emergency access. What we talked about a little bit was dropping one of these parking spots and making that handicap the first wide spot.

G. Bergman: We do have an extra handicap space on this plan and we have an extra parking space. We could modify it.

G. Lake: We would like that widened.

D. McGoey: Sixteen feet wide.

G. Bergman: We can do that. Now, can I put the handicap spot on either side of that sixteen feet?

W. Cummings: We wanted a striped area.

D. McGoey: Which it would be.

G. Bergman: I would stripe the sixteen feet but then the handicap would be outside of the sixteen feet on either side.

D. McGoey: Any other concerns?

W. Cummings: The only other concern is that intersection. We recommend to the Board that at least ask the applicant to start suggesting mitigation because sooner or later that intersection will have to be addressed. It is a bad intersection.

G. Lake: That intersection gets backed up.

D. McGoey: It's really not the applicant's fault. That's not a good intersection.

G. Bergman: Everybody knows that it's the Wendy's secondary access.

G. Lake: Back to the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Storm water runoff on this. Is it adequate to handle that long drive. This is very high.

D. McGoey: It drains down to the Masonic Creek.

A. Dulgarian: The salt and all that?

D. McGoey: There will be a vegetated slope for that.

A. Dulgarian: Right but the storm water does runs to the sewer.. It runs through a pipe.

G. Bergman: It runs out to the street. We don't discharge directly into the creek.

A. Dulgarian: I saw the drainage plan. I'm asking because that's a requirement we have.

T. Hamilton: Dick, is that standard practice?

D. McGoey: Yes. If the site was larger, the Department of Environmental Conservation would require first plus treatment at the first half inch and that's probably what they referred to.

A. Dulgarian: I remember about Currier & Lazier and a couple of other issues.

D. McGoey: Currier & Lazier wouldn't be subject to those requirements.

A. Dulgarian: Would we require a retention or a detention?

G. Lake: I know where he is talking about. There were houses right behind it. I think that's the difference.

G. Bergman: It is better to get it in the stream here.

G. Bergman: Ordinarily you're not that close to.

A. Dulgarian: You had proposed vegetation on that entire slope that's down in the back. Is that going to be maintained?

D. McGoey: It is crown vetch which is used for slope protection. It grows to a certain height and stays that way.

A. Dulgarian: It's definitely a tremendous improvement over what was there a while back.

P. Owen: I have no problem.

R. Carr: I have no problems.

G. Luenzmann: I just want to go over Maltese Drive entry point here.

G. Bergman: We are going to revise that. Dick and I are going to sit together and what ever the Town wants we will revise that.

G. Luenzmann: It seemed to me that allowing a left hand turn from Maltese Drive is hampered with traffic over here.

G. Bergman: I don't have a problem with it. It was this Board that asked me to do something.

T. Hamilton: What they were trying to eliminate was people coming out here and going this way.

G. Luenzmann: That would be a problem.

T. Hamilton: That's what the problem was. The way this was configured it's so easy for somebody to drive out and make a left there.

G. Bergman: I think the reason for the right turn only going in was not because it's easier to get into the site but the people coming down the hill, there's not the greatest site distance in the world. There's no stop on top of the hill if you're coming from Route 211 and then down Maltese.

G. Luenzmann: I understand the situation. I was just looking for anything to relieve people going around this corner here.

MOTION for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by P. Owen and seconded by R. Carr.