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

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

OTHERS PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey

G. Lake: We have three Public Hearings tonight even though we published four. The number #2 item, Baum, was a mistake on our part and it was published. It is not a Public Hearing and will be moved from #2 down into the regular work sessions, the work portion of the meeting down to item #4. So there are only three Public Hearings and Baum is not one. If anybody wants to speak on the other three Public Hearings we do have blue cards. We would appreciate it if you would fill them out and then you will be called on at that time.

Unidentified Individual: Mr. Chairman, would you please explain why it was published in the paper as a Public Hearing is not a Hearing?

G. Lake: Baum was simply a mistake that was published as a Public Hearing. The Public Hearing was held I believe on where the applicant did send out all the information and the ten day time frame where people have a right to respond by a letter to us. That has also gone by. We are also under the sixty two day time frame to act on this project now. The Public Hearing was January 16, 2002. Once the Public Hearing is closed it is closed. That's the SEQRA process. That's the process we go under.

Unidentified Individual: My understanding Mr. Chairman is that Hearing was not properly noticed in the paper and was also closed early.

G. Lake: No. We did not close the Public Hearing early. Anybody that was here, it was published. The mailings were certified. The applicant did everything right on that notification. If somebody did not get notified, did not get their mailing in time or do not read the paper, the fact that people were here and I can have our Attorney explain that sufficient notification was notified before the January 16th meeting. It was closed by a vote of the entire Board. Do you have a question on Baum?

Unidentified Individual: Yes.

G. Lake: Technical question, we're not getting into the questions about the applicant.

Unidentified Individual: According to the Agricultural District Law, the Agricultural Data Statement was supposed to be submitted before the Public Hearing. So I don't understand how we can have a Public Hearing if the Agricultural Data Statement wasn't submitted beforehand. I have a copy of the law.

G. Lake: First off, this is fairly new to us. I think we explained that when you were here the last time. It is also my understanding that we did do the process. We did send it out but we also have the right not to hold the Public Hearing again on that because we felt it was covered by the previous Public Hearing at the time.

G. Barone: There's nothing in the Agricultural Data requirement that mandates a Public Hearing.

Unidentified Individual: No. But in the law and I have a copy of the law, it reads that the Agricultural Data Statement has to be done before the Public Hearing. That was not done before the Public Hearing. So, how can we already had a Public Hearing.

G. Barone: It is in part because the Agricultural Data Statement doesn't generally provide the Board with anymore information than they can get through the normal application process.

Unidentified Individual: I understand that but that was a step that wasn't done. In other words when we came to the last meeting and I gave the law I assumed the meeting shouldn't even have gone on because the process wasn't being followed. So, if the process wasn't being following I don't know how we could exceed it.

G. Barone: The Board has now the Agricultural Data Statement. If there is anything in there which changes their minds . . .

Unidentified Individual: I understand but we're talking two different parts. We're talking about the procedure of the law. In other words if the procedure says the Agricultural Data Statement has to be first, how could we have had the Public Hearing?

G. Lake: First off, nobody on the Board even. You were here. You know we did cover the Agricultural Law once you brought it up. You know we are putting it on the plans.

Unidentified Individual: That's only one small part of it.

G. Lake: Unfortunately and again, I don't have all the answers as far as the legality goes here but the Public Hearing was held. You did bring the topic up at that Public Hearing.

Unidentified Individual: That's right.

G. Lake: It was given to the Board at that time. That's what a Public Hearing is within the Planning Board.

Unidentified Individual: I understand that.

G. Lake: A Public Hearing is not something that is rambled on and rambled just because you may or may not like the project. We did the Public Hearing. We did everything under the law. We did it by the book. We did close it that night which you were here so you know we did cover all the things you are talking about.

Unidentified Individual: I was understanding it was tabled.

G. Lake: It was not tabled.

Unidentified Individual: That was because of the Agricultural Data Statement not being in place.

G. Lake: A look at the minutes indicates the Public Hearing was closed.

J. King: I would just like to say that this project is in my ward. I would like to see a Public Hearing tonight. I had people from my ward call me. I called the Planning Department earlier this week on Monday. I was told there would be a Public Hearing tonight. Then I went back and called my constituents and told me and informed them of the Public Hearing tonight. These people came here to give their side of the story. If it is a misprint or what ever like that, they're not having their time. They came prepared to say something tonight and I think if the Board can take away a Public Hearing, they can also grant Public Hearings also.

G. Lake: Let's get a word from our Attorney.

G. Barone: Once the Public Hearing is closed, it's closed.

Unidentified Individual: Excuse me, the word tabled was issued and it was in regard to the water.

G. Lake: Mr. Barone, give us a ruling please.

G. Barone: The vote of the Board was to close the Public Hearing so, the Public Hearing is closed.

E. Valentine: Mr. Chairman and Legal Council, is there an option to allow these people to be heard? Because obviously there's a misunderstanding and something was either mis-printed or misunderstood going back to the last meeting and these people thought they were coming here to be heard. Whether it's anyone's fault at all, the point is that there is a major misunderstanding here in printing and passing out the information. Is there a way to allow these people to be heard?

G. Lake: The problem is and you're going to have to ask Legal Council at that point but most of these people have been heard. We're reading the minutes from that meeting now. They have been heard. It is not like they have not been heard. The law to my knowledge as far as SEQRA goes is pretty clear. Once the Public Hearing is closed, it's closed. It is now under the sixty two time day limit also at this point.

G. Barone: In the regulations there's no required vehicle or any method other than possibly having an Informational Public Hearing but there is no mandate that there be any subsequent Public Hearing. There is nothing that would authorize a further hearing other than by stretching the regulations and saying to have at least an Informational Public Hearing. The point is, there already was a Public Hearing and apparently many of these people have already spoken. Whether or not there is even a need for the Informational Public Hearing.

G. Lake: Mr. Barone, yes or no?

G. Barone: You don't have to have a further hearing. You closed the hearing.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board. Our Attorney has said that the Public Hearing has been closed.

P. Owen: It's closed.

R. Carr: Can I just ask Mr. Barone, would there be any problem with the application if (not audible).

G. Barone: Not clear.

T. Hamilton: It's closed.

G. Lake: We are going to put Mr. Baum at the end of the Public Hearings. It would be the first application after the Public Hearings. We will take it up then.

1. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. - WATERVIEW VILLAGE - 23 LOT SUBDIVISION - Conning/Silver Lake Scotchtown Road (28-6-2) #064B000
G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:44 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 1st day of May, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the application of Waterview Village Inc., c/o Braun & Goldberg, 110 East 59th Street, New York, New York 10022 for approval of Preliminary Subdivision , at the intersection of Conning Avenue and Silver Lake Scotchtown Road under Section 82-20 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 little explanation of what you want to do with the project.

G. Lithco: It is a twenty three lot subdivision and conforms to the Town's zoning requirements. We are proposing a highway. We are also proposing a drainage district and we will provide drainage facilities for the property.

G. Lithco: I will go through the Board before I go to the Public?

P. Owen: What are the lot sizes generally?

R. Galsworthy: The minimum lot requirement is fifteen thousand square feet. They range anywhere from there up to almost thirty thousand square feet. The average lot size is approximately seventeen to eighteen thousand square feet.

P. Owen: My map isn't very clear.

R. Galsworthy: Roughly a quarter of an acre or a third of an acre.

P. Owen: Just to clarify the third of an acre would be the average lot size or the minimum lot size.

R. Galsworthy: The minimum.

R. Carr: I don't have anything.

G. Luenzmann: I don't have questions right now.

G. Monaco: I will have questions later.

T. Hamilton: After we hear from the Public.

G. Lake: I will open this Public Hearing to the public.

E. Valentine: I was interested to know how many of these lots are a third of an acre.

G. Lake: They will answer when you are all done.

E. Valentine: Just to break it down I wanted to know how many were a third of an acre, a quarter of an acre and what is the biggest lot size in there. The other question I had was on this road coming in from Silver Lake Scotchtown Road how wide is this road? It would be impossible to fit more than two cars on that road. What is the width of the entrance of the road? Are there any sidewalks? I see curbs here. What is the minimum frontage of the lots.
I know there has been a lot of dumping in that area. Is the developer making plans on cleaning that up and what are the arrangements for that?

T. Spencer: I was just concerned because a company called AB@ Drive I think it is came to my house and told me that there's already a water problem. I live on 67 Greenway Terrace and I think my backyard is going to be affected because they told me that there is a drainage problem there and that when they develop houses back there that there is going to be more of a drainage problem. I was just concerned about that.

J. Parekh: I live on Sunglow Terrace. This is close to where I live. I want to know how far this would be from my property line and if there are any regulations on that?

G. Lake: You live where?

J. Parekh: Sunglow Terrace.

G. Lake: From your property line?

J. Parekh: Yes, from my property line.

G. Lake: You live off of George's Road then?

J. Parekh: That's right.

G. Lake: I think you are quite a ways away. We will have them point that out on the map. You're not even on the area map. We will have them answer that for you.

E. Valentine: I know you are collecting the questions but if there's any way to answer them as we go along, we may have more questions that your answers may create.

G. Lake: The purpose of the Public Hearing with the Planning Board is to get any new facts and information that we haven't already covered. Sometimes we don't even act because we close the Public Hearing and then there's a ten day comment period that people can write in to us and then we review all the comments at that point. Tonight we will ask the applicant to answer some of these questions. Basically he has the right to go back and do research and what ever else he has to do. We are going to try to answer some of the questions. After the closing of the Public Hearing, there is a ten day comment period that people can write in to us in case there were any other comments. We are restrictive to the SEQRA process. Again to go through the list in this manner. People may not want to hear sometimes but that's really what has to be done.

P. Owen: There is still the opportunity to comment. If you don't get all your comments addressed, there are ten days following the close of the Public Hearing to send them in.

E. Valentine: To ask questions and who answers those?

G. Lake: We review it along with our Engineer and our Attorney and us and then at the next Public meeting it is back in the paper and then we act on it at that point.

E. Valentine: You answer those at that point or within the ten day period?

G. Lake: We will answer some tonight.

E. Valentine: Within the ten day period, that's the written question comments. Those are answered.

G. Lake: At the next one or in our findings.

E. Valentine: One last comment I had is in looking at the project it just seems like twenty three homes for that little area there coming off a two lane road on to a two lane road is just a lot of homes. I personally would like to see it cut down somewhat. Not a lot, but . . .

MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 7:55 P.M. made by P. Owen and seconded by T. Hamilton.

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

6 AYES. Motion carried.

G. Lake: Do you want to answer some of those questions as far as the road. We worked pretty hard on the road. Anybody that has a question about the road, the Town roads used to be twenty four feet. With the Silver Lake Fire Department we worked pretty hard with this applicant and they did lose a couple of lots I believe because of it to widen that road to thirty feet. That was for emergency vehicles so they could get down since there was a cul-de-sac. Since then we have almost have it on every subdivision like this, the thirty foot road even going against the wishes of our Highway Superintendent.

G. Lithco: The applicant has worked with the Fire Department, the Highway Superintendent to ensure that this road does conform to the Town's specifications. There is a minimum lot frontage requirement of ninety feet in this zoning district and in all cases we meet or exceed that. With respect to lot size, it's significant that the lot requirement is fifteen thousand square feet. We will be somewhere between one third and two thirds which translates into something on the order of at least fifteen to twenty percent on average and as almost as one hundred percent in excess of the minimum lot size.

G. Lake: What you said on the lot sizes, they were going to be at least twenty percent bigger than they have to be.

G. Lithco: yes.

G. Lake: On, how many of them?

G. Lithco: The average lot size of eighteen thousand square feet would be about twenty percent.

Continue