Planning Board 4-17-02 Page 4 of 4

7. MAPLES FARM - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Route 17M (36-2-10) #026-002

M. Fellenzer: I'm a principal in Fellenzer Engineering in Middletown. I'm representing Maples Farm tonight. They're here to request Site Plan approval for modifications to their existing site in the form of an addition of a five thousand square foot storage building, addition to their bulk yard area, expansion to their shed sales area, a little discussion on the location of the existing shed sales area and notification on a proposed future building behind the bulk storage area.

G. Lake: I will go to the Board.

A. Dulgarian: I am a little vague on exactly what's there and also I see that you're into renting equipment now too. Where are they going to be displayed?

T. Hamilton: Right now, they are next to the road.

A. Dulgarian: I know. The backhoe and the little. That would have to be located on the plan also.

G. Lake: Did you have a work session with Mr. McGoey?

M. Fellenzer: I've had two on this project.

G. Lake: I recall one but you did have two on this?

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Lake: I think there are a lot of questions that will come up. Why don't you go through each one?

M. Fellenzer: Absolutely. I guess the first thing is the storage building located on your plans on the upper left hand corner. That is a fifty by one hundred foot storage building. That is for the purpose of storing materials and products that they sell.

A. Dulgarian: That's proposed?

M. Fellenzer: That's proposed.

D. McGoey: Can you label that proposed?

M. Fellenzer: Sure. I will just jump to the other building so you understand. That's something we're not doing now but we had a discussion on at the suggestion of the Town Engineer. We showed it to give a better concept of what their long term plans were.

G. Lake: That's behind the bulk storage?

M. Fellenzer: Correct. I can try and make these clearer on what's existing and new. We tried to use the base drawing of what had been approved by the Board previously so that everyone could understand kind of what all the things that are going on at the site. That building is basically just a storage building. There will be very little lighting as you see around the perimeter of it. We're requesting that basically stone drive be provided to it. It's really for internal use of bulk storage backup to the produce store, for the selling of those different items. Do you want me to go through each one?

G. Lake: Go through each item.

M. Fellenzer: The easiest one to try and handle I guess is the shed sales area. Previously there was a thirty by one hundred foot shed sales area approved on the plan. At that time we didn't have heavy discussion but there was a little confusion on setback on whether that required a setback or not. At that time we chose to just show it, thirty five foot setback and that was what was approved by the Board. It turned out that it really just doesn't work for his business because the way the taking was done or the giving of the property on Maples Road you can see the edge of the property is already probably fifteen feet or so off the road and then you add thirty five feet to it, you're shed that he's trying to sell is now really fifty feet off the road. They are kind of tucked away. It does not work good for him in terms of sales. I've tried to do some research in the code and the setback is really to buildings. These are really display items.

G. Lake: They also ended up back there after Mr. Steenrod, from the Building Department.

M. Fellenzer: I believe probably on more than one occasion.

G. Lake: Right. That's why they are back there now.

M. Fellenzer: I understand that. He would like to have them up on the road also.

G. Lake: To say it doesn't work, that's not our problem.

M. Fellenzer: I'm not assessing fault.

G. Lake: A setback is a setback and not to say it's not something.

M. Fellenzer: I'm just saying the setback. I believe the code for setbacks is for building structures.

D. McGoey: That argument should be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

M. Fellenzer: They are looking to expand it. They want to display more. Dan told me in order to sell sheds you have to have a lot of them in stock because people basically want to pick one out and drive it away. They are here to expand the existing three thousand square foot area into larger spaces. I have those designated. Also down on the right I've added to the bulk table requirements for parking purposes the additional items in square footage and the parking required for them. The next area to talk about is the bulk area itself. They would like to expand the bulk yard itself in a two phase operation expansion in terms of area wise would all occur now. They probably would not do a scale this summer or fall if they're approved but they would have the ability to purchase a large scale. That's shown on the plan probably within the one year construction time frame. That's been shown in the expansion area.

G. Lake: So, they are going to be getting away from the home owner basically and getting into the contractors?

M. Fellenzer: Mostly still home owners but some contractors. The purpose of the scale is for the weighing of their product as they purchase it coming in from their venders. They have to make sure what they're getting is fair. As far as I know, no it's not a larger proposal to do a lot more contractor work but I'm sure they will sell to whoever wants to buy from them. They haven't really talked about larger piles of anything. I don't think they plan on competing with Tetz or something on stone. The products they sell are basically for landscaping. At a future date their idea is for right now we show a small scale house to support the operation of the scale, a ten foot by ten foot scale house. At some point that would be encompassed in a larger fifty by one hundred foot building. They are not really asking for Site Plan approval on the fifty by one hundred foot building but they would need a smaller scale house in order to house the equipment, etc. Those are the four specific items they are looking for. As Dick said, in terms of the setback request on the shed sales area if this Board didn't feel comfortable making any determination on it and felt it was more appropriate at the Zoning Board of Appeals we would still ask for the area to be expanded and then we would go on to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance or an interpretation in terms of setback.

T. Hamilton: Gary, in 249-9 under lot and yard requirements, item (c). It says exceptions to yard requirements. There's nothing in there about sheds or what ever.

G. Barone: 249-9?

T. Hamilton: (c). In other words, the shed area, the display area should meet the yard requirements.

G. Barone: You're saying it's not subject to the setback requirements?

T. Hamilton: No. It should meet. These are items here that don't have to meet them.

G. Barone: That's correct.

T. Hamilton: They should have to meet the setbacks for the shed sales area.

G. Barone: I would agree to it but my logic to it is to assume that there is some setback required for outdoor sales.

M. Fellenzer: I realize it's not the same because of the unique animals. Any kind of a commercial retail business would display something outside and I don't believe it would be subject to necessarily a setback requirement but I also agree that there are concerns for possibly vision. I would think that most stores put out what they sell in front of their building which probably would violate a setback.

G. Lake: I know the one out in Slate Hill is pretty well off the road.

G. Barone: I think the fact of the matter is that once these are sold they are structures.

M. Fellenzer: It would be similar to automobile dealerships where many of them are within the setback requirements. That's something for the Board to determine.

G. Lake: Dick, do you agree that this may be a Zoning Board of Appeals question?

D. McGoey: I would say it would be.

M. Fellenzer: Can I ask the Board, do you support that or do you feel it should be a thirty five foot? Are you looking for an interpretation or a variance?

G. Lake: You tell us what you want to do.

D. McGoey: It's up to you.

G. Lake: We're not going to do that for you. You tell us which one you want to do and then we will tell you. I guess I'm confused. If I go to the Zoning Board of Appeals am I asking them for a setback variance or an interpretation?

G. Luenzmann: If you go for a variance, it's no tough deal.

G. Lake: Are you going to the Zoning Board of Appeals on that?

M. Fellenzer: We will either maintain the existing thirty five foot setback from the property line or go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I just need to consult back with the owner what he would like to do.

G. Lake: Do you have Dick's comments?

M. Fellenzer: Yes I do.

G. Lake: Why don't we go through those? He has several proposals here tonight on this. Now, if we okay it and let's say he only does one portion of it and he waits two years before he does another portion how is that going to affect the Site Plan? Will he have to come back for extensions or once he does one portion it indicates he has started.

G. Barone: That's an interesting question because the code talks about substantially completing the Site Plan within a twelve month period. So if he builds the major structure and he proposes to do something else then has he substantially completed the Site Plan for just one single component of it.

G. Lake: It sounds like one building will be built pretty quick.

M. Fellenzer: Yes.

G. Lake: And then the other buildings, hopefully he builds out quickly but what if things don't work out and it's two or three years from now?

R. Carr: I don't think he's looking to do that.

M. Fellenzer: The five thousand square foot storage building is the thing they are going to be fairly quickly. The next item would be the scale. There really isn't much construction in terms of increasing the shed area. Really the proposed future fifty by one hundred foot building, we plan on coming back to the Board to ask for that again but we didn't want to come back and have you say why didn't you tell us about this when you were here before.

A. Dulgarian: The ten by ten?

M. Fellenzer: The ten by ten we are looking for as part of the scale structure.

A. Dulgarian: Then will you remove the lines from the proposed?

M. Fellenzer: Absolutely. It's not a problem to do that.

G. Lake: I'm saying that once we okay it, then things aren't completely finished.

A. Dulgarian: I don't like that stuff either where it gets approved and then it is put aside for some time and all of a sudden they start.

G. Lake: Let's go through Dick's comments.

M. Fellenzer: Sure. Item #1 we handled. That's the setback shed issue. Item #2 we can talk about a little bit. That really has to do with the increase to the bulk area and the . . .

D. McGoey: And the animals?

M. Fellenzer: The Scottish Highland cows he has there was a discussion we had and we were concerned that maybe we were taking away enough acreage. They have presently seven of those beef cows. They really keep the herd about that size. They do supplement to grazing herd. They do keep it right around that size. They supplement it with feed. These animals will eat about anything. Every now and then and use one for beef.

D. McGoey: Where are they going to be?

M. Fellenzer: We show the fenced area through the property.

G. Lake: Near that pond.

M. Fellenzer: Obviously they have water with the pond. They use them as part of their display when they take the kids around on the hay wagons. That was really the purpose of the existing and proposed fencing discussion. We wouldn't move the barb wire fence around the increase. The proposed additional sixty nine thousand square feet of bulk area. Item #3 I just discussed. Item #4, pavement. We've shown pavement into the bulk area for the purpose of keeping a nice, getting rid of the mud, etc. when they leave. They certainly have a lot of equipment that goes in and out there in terms of the large wheel loaders. The trucks are coming out. The type of items that are delivered into the bulk area. The owner would like to provide gravel driveways and gravel parking areas for the bulk area as well as the access to and from the storage area. He is not opposed to doing additional paving but would really prefer to do the paving in the area where mostly people are involved buying products and all which would really be between Route l7M and the existing house and back to the propane tank, in that area. I've tried to show where the paving kind of exists now that was done as part of the previous Site Plan improvements.

G. Lake: You have cars parked all over on probably most of the busiest corners in that part of Town with people crossing the road and running the red light the best way they can. None of it addresses any of that problem that he has there. His one major problem is safety which this Board does consider once in a while hasn't been addressed at all. I would like to see you go back to your client and you go back to another work session and talk about a couple of those things. You go out there on Halloween, one of the biggest times.

M. Fellenzer: The hay rides, the ghost house.

G. Lake: From the City of Middletown line to the Town of Wallkill line with cars all over the place.

M. Fellenzer: I can't disagree with you. Certainly we've shown quite a bit of expansion of parking along this area to the left of the pond.

G. Lake: Sure.

M. Fellenzer: That's the area that we will pave. He doesn't want to pave too much in the bulk area. He certainly doesn't want to pave back to his storage building because the equipment will start chewing it all up.

G. Lake: On the week end. Go out there this week end. They will be parked all over the place.

M. Fellenzer: I'm fine with the Board saying anything in excess of twenty spaces should be paved.

G. Lake: We have the two zone things we need an explanation on.

G. Barone: I think considering the nature of the uses and the fact that you have proposals in the PID are you would have to have a Public Hearing.

M. Fellenzer: The proposal in the PID primarily?

G. Barone: It's all under the same application.

M. Fellenzer: Sure. We should do another work session Dick to iron out some of these other issues?

D. McGoey: Yes.

M. Fellenzer: We did show the other details in terms of site lighting. We did do a cross section, etc. We can work those out with our review. Just to back up pretty much the Board in terms of the parking areas, anything in excess of twenty spaces you just want it paved and the more paving the better for safety purposes.

G. Lake: We can't relieve you of that any way. You either have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals or do it.

M. Fellenzer: Okay. In terms of the Public Hearing we would have another work session, have comments, will we set it?

D. McGoey: They are going to set it now.

T. Hamilton: Dick is this applicant and this all straightened out with Mr. Steenrod? I know over the years we have been in and out trying to get things straightened out. Is he satisfied?

D. McGoey: I don't know. Maybe I will bring him in.

M. Fellenzer: That will be fine. We're down to and it was really held up with the road construction here, the re-working of Maples but we're making it down to the curbing in and out of the bulk yard area as an outstanding area. The shrubs right along that, they re-worked it. He had done those. I don't think they had been inspected by Mr. Steenrod.

T. Hamilton: Let's make sure we have everything straightened out with him on the old application.

M. Fellenzer: I have no problem with that.

A. Dulgarian: For your work session make sure you find out from your applicant how many rental units?

M. Fellenzer: That's not really there.

MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for July 3, 2002 made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

6 AYES. Motion carried.

8. ANDRIES - 4 LOT SUBDIVISION - Highland Lakes Road (64-1-47.32) #023-002

M. Fellenzer: I'm a principal in Fellenzer Engineering in Middletown. I'm here tonight to represent Mr. Andries. It's a four lot minor subdivision for the purpose of residential, single family lot development.

G. Lake: I take it you had a work session with Mr. McGoey?

M. Fellenzer: Yes. We had two work sessions on this project.

D. McGoey: We recommended that the lot width be increased but they haven't changed it since the work session.

M. Fellenzer: That's correct. I spoke to the owner after that and he would like very much to maintain the lot widths at the one hundred fifty feet. We have not finalized the soils testing so we will have to see how that resolves. I believe along with the lot width issue is the ratio lot with to depth requirement. They go hand in hand. We do exceed those.

D. McGoey: Correct.

M. Fellenzer: If the Board truly wants to maintain that on the property we would either try to make that additional depth behind the back of it about two hundred fifty feet part of the parent parcel or we can consider a dedication of that land to the adjoining land owners which is the City of Middletown.

T. Hamilton: The reservoir.

M. Fellenzer: It would be protection off the back side of the reservoir.

G. Lake: Do we have to notify the City of Middletown?

D. McGoey: It would be part of the Public Hearing. He would have to send a Public Hearing notice to them.

G. Lake: You are telling us the owner wants to leave the lots as they are?

M. Fellenzer: He would prefer to.

G. Lake: Have you tested the soils yet?

M. Fellenzer: We started to and with the rains we have not gone through completion on it. We have not completed it. Once we complete it, we may change it according to how well the percolation tests are. Certainly for single family homes it's okay.

G. Lake: We have been asking everybody to widen the frontage a little bit mainly because everybody is building huge homes today.

M. Fellenzer: Unfortunately with the location of the tennis court that exists there, any increase in lot width will basically mean they will lose a lot in terms of the development of the property. That's just the way it is. It's not like they can add fifty feet to the lots and still have.

P. Owen: What about a flag lot? At least these aren't flag lots, they are straight lots.

G. Lake: What's worse?

M. Fellenzer: I don't think it would be a problem for the owner if the Board desires.

G. Lake: You have to do the soils yet?