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 Kandel Associates, LLP, 6 Hillcrest Drive, Middletown, New
York 10940 for approval of a three lot subdivision, located on
the east side of M & M Road, 3,000 feet from Bloomingburg
Road, under Article III, Section 4, Paragraph G 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
D.
Yanosh: I am the Surveyor for the project.
G.
Lake: Give us a description of what you want to do.
D. Yanosh: It is a fifty three acre parcel of land in the R-2
zone on M & M Road. The proposal is for a three lot subdivision.
Lot #1 will be 3.36 acres with a single family home, individual
well and septic. Lot #2 will be 3.00 acres with a single family
home, individual well and septic. Lot #3, the remaining lands
of 45.51 acres will remain vacant at this time for future development.
Also included is a fifty foot wide strip along the northerly section
of the property along the Christian Faith Fellowship Church and
the other lands of Kandel Associates. The fifty foot strip is
to give tax lot #106 road frontage on to M & M Road. Right
now that piece of property is landlocked. If you look at my location
map up here in the corner you will notice that it is a landlocked
piece of property right now. This will give it access for anybody
to put another house on there probably in the future. Right now
it has no road frontage at all.
G.
Lake: I will go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: That fifty foot strip is going to be sold to the neighbors?
D.
Yanosh: Correct.
P.
Owen: I have nothing.
R.
Carr: That fifty foot strip, is that a lot line change?
D.
Yanosh: It will be a lot line change. That was one of Dick's comments.
This lot line here will be removed and added to the other parcel.
G.
Luenzmann: I don't have anything.
G.
Monaco: I have nothing.
T.
Hamilton: I have nothing.
MOTION
to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 8:39 P.M. made by T. Hamilton
and seconded by P. Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G. Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
7
AYES. Motion carried.
G.
Lake: Do you have Dick's comments?
D.
Yanosh: Yes. The Agricultural District, I will re-check but as
far as I knew the latest one was the Fellowship Church. That was
year's ago. Comment #2 I have to put the lot line back on. The
only thing we can do with tax lot 106 is possibly put one house
on there, possibly later on. It is getting it road frontage. Right
now it has no access at all. Comment #3, the septic has to be
approved by Eustance & Horowitz. I have to show that line
being delineated between the two tax map parcels. I have no problem
with that. The separation distances, we will take care of that
when we go to Eustance & Horowitz with our septic review.
I will show the stone walls and where the driveways are coming
in to the property. I will take care of that in the field. Comment
#8 was the wetlands area. I will talk to my client and we will
get somebody out there to review it to see what kind of wetlands
it is. We know we have some Department of Environmental Conservation
wetlands way in the back, whether that is Army Corps or not we
will have someone check it.
A.
Dulgarian: I have nothing.
P.
Owen: I have nothing.
R.
Carr: Just a question, that you're opening up to, how big is that
lot?
D.
Yanosh: 12.2 acres.
R.
Carr: Only one house can on?
D.
Yanosh: One, maybe two.
R.
Carr: That fifty foot is a road?
D. Yanosh: It's not the intent. We did some soils testing. The
most we can ever do when we come back to this Board will probably
be two lots. That's the most we can do with the soils back there.
It is just opening it up.
G.
Luenzmann: I have no questions.
G.
Monaco: No questions.
T.
Hamilton: No.
MOTION
for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION subject to all comments made by T.
Hamilton and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
7
AYES. Motion carried.
MOTION
for PRELIMINARY APPROVAL subject to all comments made by T. Hamilton
and seconded by G. Monaco.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G. Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
7
AYES. Motion carried.
1. BAUM - 9 LOT SUBDIVISION - VanAmburgh Road (31-1-17) #018-001
G.
Lake: The applicant did re-mail and re-publish under the assumption
for the Agricultural District Law. So, we will open the Public
Hearing for that end of it. Try to keep comments to the Agricultural
District Law. That's really what he was under the impression that
tonight's Public Hearing was.
J.
Dillin: I voluntarily mailed Certified mailings.
G.
Lake: Give us why and how you affect the Agricultural District
and how you affect the law there and what the Public Hearing is
for.
J.
Dillin: At the last Public Hearing, the Agricultural Data Statement
was not sent to adjoining farm owners. Sometime in January I sent
the notice to all the farm owners. I notified them of what we're
doing and I sent the new notice Certified. The subdivision is
located on nineteen acres. It's off VanAmburgh Road. It's located
in the RA zone. The lot areas are determined by the soil formulas.
This proposal is to subdivide the property into nine lots with
one coming off VanAmburgh Road. All the residential lots will
have individual wells and septics. At the last meeting we changed
the road according to the Highway Superintendent. He wanted a
long road rather than a curved road. That's all incorporated in
this plan. That's the application before the Board.
G.
Lake: I will go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: I have nothing.
P.
Owen: Nothing right now.
R.
Carr: Later probably.
G. Luenzmann: Nothing right now.
G.
Monaco: I will reserve comments for after the public.
T.
Hamilton: My only question is just looking at Dick's comments
there are about thirteen of his comments.
G.
Lake: Were most of these handled between the last time at a work
session?
D.
McGoey: These are continuing.
G.
Lake: I will open this Public Hearing at 8:47 P.M.
K.
Mulqueen: I am a Town of Wallkill and I know some of you and I
appreciate the hard work that all of you do. I come tonight not
in opposition to any proposed development. I think development
is good and I ask you to seriously consider the impact on neighbors
and agriculture. I ask you to consider the fact that if you're
here on the days that the Town Board meets some of the people
had spoken earlier. It has to deal with the quality of life issues.
Things like rats, things like water that runs off. You don't talk
about those things when you have a good working farm. I know that
the Smith's have an idea for a buffer that would protect the farm,
that would really honor the good work that those farms do but
still have the development of this property. That's exactly what
I ask you to seriously consider so that you honor the good work
that all agriculture does in this community because if we lose
the agriculture, you lose something that we will never get back.
C.
Vasta: I represent the Ferrante property which is seventeen acres
around this subdivision. I know that you're only here for agriculture
but my grandmother is ninety years and broke her hip in December.
I was in contact with Carol. I was told that I would have a chance
to speak in my grandmothers behalf tonight in reference to the
subdivision. I'm aware now that you are not allowing me to speak
in reference to the subdivision in behalf of my grandmother. We
have an easement that is going in there to protect nine acres
of our property in the back. The easement was not on the original
plans that we received and I have not received new plans with
the easement going in there now. So, I see a landlock of our property
of nine acres back there.
G.
Lake: Will you show this lady that?
C. Vasta: I understand the easement. I spoke to my lawyer about
the easement. I don't understand why I'm being made to loop back
through my own property if I were to develop. I don't see the
point on that. Why give me the easement if you're going to make
me develop back through my own property?
G.
Lake: I'm sorry. You lost me right there. Do you have road frontage
to this property?
C.
Vasta: We have road frontage on VanAmburgh Road, yes.
G.
Lake: Plus the easement.
C.
Vasta: Well, the easement is to provide the nine acres in the
back so that we're not landlocked because if the development goes
back there we wouldn't have any access so you've granted us an
easement that would allow us to do that in the future.
G.
Lake: You're landlocked now then? You have to go across this side
to get to that land?
C.
Vasta: Right.
G.
Lake: So, we are providing you an easement to get to it.
C.
Vasta: Allowing me only if I access a loop back through my own
property. I haven't been given any new plans that show me anything.
G.
Lake: I am going to try and answer that for you. First of all,
you do have access to that nine acres through other property that
you own. We just had one a couple of weeks ago and it was the
same issue.
C.
Vasta: Okay.
G.
Lake: The gentleman said he was landlocked but yet he owned his
own land in front of it. So, you do have access to your nine acres.
What this Board did besides you having your own access to that
land, we have also asked this applicant to make sure in the future
to make sure there was an easement to that nine acres also. So
that land takes that front piece of yours if it got sold off,
there was still some way to get back to that nine acres.
C.
Vasta: Right because if divide in my front then I have no access
to my back.
G.
Lake: I'm telling you that this Board.
C. Vasta: I know you are telling me now. I don't see that in the
plan in front of me.
G.
Lake: No, but it is on the plan and it's been on it for a while.
It is here.
C.
Vasta: Because the last time I spoke to Mr. Dillin he said the
Town was making him due that but again I have never seen anything.
G.
Lake: That nine acres, you now have two ways in to.
C.
Vasta: Will I get a plan. When were we going to be notified that
it was going to be happening?
G.
Lake: It will be on the plan once it gets approved.
C.
Vasta: Okay.
D.
McGoey: Where is this easement?
J.
Dillin: We're talking about the extension of the cul-de-sac.
D.
McGoey: That's the easement she's talking about but where is there
easement?
J.
Dillin: They don't have an easement. We are granting them off
of our property.
D.
McGoey: She said she has an easement.
C.
Vasta: No. I've been told that they are going to grant us an easement.
D.
McGoey: Okay, but I still haven't seen it yet.
G.
Lake: That's this right here.
D.
McGoey: We have to make sure that gives them the right because
right now even the way it is, unless it is dedicated as a Town
road it doesn't become an easement.
P.
Owen: It's not an easement.
D.
McGoey: We will have to make sure that it is an easement.
G. Lake: You do agree with that easement though and are you willing
to put a note on the plans for that?
J.
Dillin: I think we have a note on here. I also supplied, I believe
it was the Attorney this week the maps.
G.
Lake: Okay. I understand what this is for. I think Dick's concern
is just that we make sure that we have the proper wording, that's
all.
J.
Dillin: Mainly but it's also going to be a gratuitous offer to
the Town so the Town will have control.
C.
Vasta: So, that will be put in writing, that it will happen?
G.
Lake: Yes. Our Attorney. . .
T.
Hamilton: Gary, this lady was just mentioning about a loop. I
didn't quite understand what they were talking about. If you read
note #6, it says about looping through her property. I think that
what was she was upset about.
C.
Vasta: Right. I still haven't seen any plans that say anything
about looping back through my property.
R.
Carr: Right now you have, just to look at it, you have no right
to this property right now and this states. . .
C.
Vasta: No right to what property?
R.
Carr: This property here. You have nothing right now. According
to this you will have the option, it's not that you have to, if
you want to develop a road that comes all the way through and
hooks up to here, you can.
C.
Vasta: You're going to give me that option with the easement.
R.
Carr: That is what an easement is. You have the option to do that.
You don't have to do it but it's in the plan that you could connect
a road that comes through from the other end of your property,
be connected here and property improves the value of the back
property.
C. Vasta: Now, that will be put in writing.
R.
Carr: It's on the plan.
C.
Vasta: Because grandma has not received a new set of plans that
shows that in writing.
G.
Lake: It will be on his map when he files it. It will probably
be a few months down the road. When he files the map, all that
will be one it.
C.
Vasta: Okay.
G.
Lake: Our Attorney is going to get together with him and have
the proper language on it.
Continue
