C. Vasta: Okay.

T. Hamilton: My question is back on this easement again. If the landowners, the Ferrante's decide to sell that back piece can they just use that easement to access that back piece or does it have to be looped?

C. Vasta: No, you're telling me I have to loop back.

T. Hamilton: That's what I'm trying to get clarification on.

R. Carr: According to note #6 it has to be looped.

T. Hamilton: This isn't her property and her note. They have to agree.

C. Vasta: Right.

G. Lake: Mr. Barone, please give us advise.

G. Barone: As I understand the proposal is this, the owner of the nine acres will have the right to propose a road for dedication to the Town. Something less than that, they are not going to have the right to do. Is that what you proposed?

J. Dillin: Exactly right. I think I was asked at the last meeting to offer this and I had no objection at all. As long as they loop the road we can grant them an easement. It is a considerable amount of distance through lots #5 and lot #6. It was agreed at the last meeting that as long as they looped it, they could use it.

C. Vasta: You're going to give me a Town road but I'm not going to be able to use it unless I loop back to my own property. Then, what's the point of the Town road?

G. Lake: Dick, all we care about is to make sure that this is not a landlocked piece?

D. McGoey: Yes. The Planning Boards intent was to do some planning here. That's what they are here for. The planning is rather than having a lot of dead end roads in the Town, is to allow this road to be extended out to VanAmburgh Road at another location for emergency purposes.

G. Lake: We're not forcing you to do anything. Right now you have a piece of land, nine acres behind twenty acres of which you have access to off your property.

C. Vasta: Right.

G. Lake: What this Planning Board did with this was instead of having another dead end road gave you that ability to build a loop road to have a through street instead of having a cul-de-sac. That's it. So, you have two ways to that property and yes, I guess if you ever decided to develop that piece of land you may want to loop it anyway.

C. Vasta: When my Attorney looked at it, it sounded like it was going to be looped back through my property.

G. Lake: Only if you do it. He's not going to do it.

C. Vasta: Well, that's the note on his plan.

G. Lake: He's only giving you the land to do it.

C. Vasta: I understand that. The wording is very important.

G. Lake: Our Attorney is going to look at the wording to make sure that it meets the intent that we are looking for.

C. Vasta: Okay. Now, I heard you before on tabled, and closed, and writing comments. Where is my report now? Am I only allowed to comment in writing once I leave here? What happens? How do I respond to any of your actions that you made now because you have already said it has been closed.

G. Lake: Basically what we're here for tonight is the Agricultural District. You have to realize this gentleman followed SEQRA all the way.

C. Vasta: I understand that.

G. Lake: That's the process he has to go through. We are already outside of what he has to follow. He's willing to talk about those items. Now, after tonight and I don't know where we're going with this because there are a few items that we have to discuss yet but after tonight and there isn't much I can tell you but if you're really unhappy you can file an Article 78. Your Attorney can tell you that.

C. Vasta: So, I don't really have any recourse to speak again, is that what you're saying, Mr. Chairman?

G. Lake: That's right.

P. Coady: I am a resident of the Town of Wallkill at 30 O'Haire Road. I am addressing the Agricultural District portion. Most of you, I hope, have had an opportunity to see today's headlines in the Times Herald Record. You all certainly now the cliche that good fences make good neighbors. But in the case of an active working farm and having one about thirty feet for years to my back door I can tell you that fences alone does not make a good neighbor with an active working farm. If you are as one of our distinguished gentleman of the County and Region used to say agriculturally illiterate. A good working farm is noisy at times. It's dusty at times. There are odors at times. And the rest of the time is beautiful and peaceful and tranquil. But if you're having a graduation party on a Friday afternoon when somebody decides to till a field and a prevailing southwest wind is blowing over those lots as it would be in this case for the working farm that lays mostly southerly of it, you would object. You would be disturbed. The way to avoid that problem is to put a proper buffer in so that the proper amount of growth of trees and shrubs and bushes can make good neighbors. I would encourage the Board to look at these plans and adjust this plans to provide a good buffer zone so that we can have good residential development and have good farms and have good neighbors and not drive our farms away as the story in today's paper indicated. This is another farm in Ulster County that has already spent over $100,000 defending it's right to farm because of the people that moved in later. There's another one in the southeast portion of this County where three people moved in the winter time and had very grave objections to the tilling and the fertilizing in the spring because they didn't know anything about a working farm. You prevent those problems with your good planning and I would suggest here that good planning includes a proper buffer.

C. Wille: I reside on our farm at 250 Kaisertown Road, Town of Montgomery. Presently I am a member of the New York State Advisory Council on Agriculture, which advises the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets and the Governor on matters pertaining to agricultural districts. I also am a member of the Hudson Valley Greenway Communities Council. The Greenway activity supports agriculture in the region, for the economic benefits agriculture provides and the enhanced quality of life farms provide by maintaining open space. Owners of property have the right to sell their property and other property owners have a right to use their property for lawful purposes. Local governments have the responsibility to assure owners have a reasonable opportunity to use and enjoy their property. It has become apparent to me, through my work with the Advisory Council that conflicts arise occasionally between active farm operations and agricultural illiterate residential property owners. The law is clear that farmers have the right to farm providing they follow sound agricultural practices. In fact purchasers of residential property, in an agriculture district are required by law to sign a disclosure statement when they purchase property, that farming activities occur in the district. However, the sensible remedy to minimize conflicts is through creative planning. The agricultural data statement, required by the Agricultural District Law, should assist the Board in their decision making process. Set backs, buffer zones, screening, berms and lot designs are techniques, which may be considered in the planning process to assure harmony between the landowners when the romance of country living wanes. I would suggest the planners review the lot design to avoid future conflicts between neighbors. Throughout the planning process it is critical that the developer provide protection measures. They should not be transferred to the adjoining property owner, in this case the farmer. Home buyers are attracted to the area because of our open space, much of which is provided by our farms. Balancing the demand for homes and protecting the environmental quality of the area is a challenge for local government and I commend the Board Members for accepting the role to bring about this harmony in our area.

P. Carey: I work for the Cooperative Extension and for as many people in this room I deal with agriculture on a day to day basis. This Board should seriously consider a buffer zone for this property. This would be a good idea in order to prevent any future problems as you heard already with the story in the paper today. That's a pretty blatant issue here. I deal with issues all the time though. They don't make the headlines. I get phone calls roughly once a week if not every two weeks on some sort of residential agricultural use complaint. Many of these issues are easily resolved. However, at the same time the people always don't feel fully compensated because of the problems. You don't really know what odors manure has until you've tasted it we will say. What I usually find is people have bought a home and the first thing in the spring there goes the spreader and the odors are overwhelming to them. Besides the odors from manure would be the dust from tilling practices and many of our other agricultural practices such as the application of crop protection, chemicals. A lot of people call up and say that they are getting what we call drift in agriculture when it really isn't. Many of these chemicals have odors that have been applied properly. They give out the odor for a few days. I've applied crop protection chemicals for two years. I'm very familiar with the various odors. Some of them are fairly offensive. However, they are the best used and most economically for the farmer to use. It's good to have a buffer zone, a good distance that way these odors don't move right over. If somebody places a swimming pool too close to the line they could really get quite upset. Then it becomes my problem and that gentleman who just spoke his problem. We don't like to see people in agriculture suffer in the courts for years and spending lots of money on things that items like the Agricultural
District Law which are to protect the farmer. I know that Mr. Smith uses best management practices on his farm to limit these nuisances such as odors, dust and noise. However, even if the best management practices that we all can implement you cannot fully get rid of any one of these nuisances as a private land owner would see them.

J. King: Part of good planning is being able to answer and state problems. No one here tonight is opposed to this property here being proposed for homes but what their concerns are without proper buffers or the lack of buffers. It's obvious from what's been said tonight that farming is not a nine to five job. More times it's a five to nine job. To have good neighbors you have to have good fences like this man said. What we're asking for is proper buffering of this property. There are some lots that are as close as fifty one feet from the property line. That's a little too close.

B. McDonnell: When they spread does it stink and I border them. I would like to know, I'm completely ignorant of process here. How does the situation go from the last meeting where we gave two issues that we had open before the Board on flood and proper drainage, the word ATabled@ wasn't used. We were between a discussion . . .There was mention of every six weeks to figure out what was going to happen without proper drainage. How do we get AClosed@ with no Public Hearing in between? I did not receive any kind of communication on this and I did send in a list of my issues to Carol.

G. Lake: First of all, after the last Public Hearing, it does go back to a work session like this one did with Mr. McGoey especially if there was a drainage issue. Mr. McGoey, who is our Town Engineer would then at a work session with the applicant. In SEQRA, it's the steps that we take. This is where the confusion is tonight because he sent out notices regarding the agricultural data statement. I didn't realize he did that as a courtsey.

J. Dillin: I only sent to the agricultural lots.

G. Lake: He only had to send to farmers at this time. I will be honest with you, this law that we're talking about tonight to protect the farmers nobody on this Board is against that law. As a matter of act when it came to us and Mr. King brought it to me, the Councilman for that area, we automatically went to work on it. Now, unfortunately government doesn't work as fast as everybody would like sometimes. The notice he sent today was only to farmers, right?

J. Dillin: Yes.

G. Lake: The active working farms in the district. The last time you were here, so you did get a notice. It was published in the paper and that's his responsibility that he did. Once we take the comments in there is a ten day comment period. Then after we go through all these facts we send it back to our consultants who have the work session to iron the issues out. We don't have another Public Hearing after that and another Public Hearing after that. It just doesn't work that way.

B. McDonnell: With my green thumb I'm just basically taking your decision as this is it.

G. Lake: Unfortunately, that's basically a yes. We listen to our Engineer. Mr. McGoey tells us we have to do this, this and this. We never turn him down on any of these things. He's also an Engineer by the way.

D. McGoey: Do you want me to address the drainage? I can.

G. Lake: Go ahead. Address it.

D. McGoey: I went to your property and looked at the issue. Your property does flood. I can tell that. The only relative impact that I see is from the first two lots, lots #1 and #2 which flow off the back yard and drain down to the stream, which they do now. The fronts of the lots will drain to the road. I don't see any wet increase in storm water flow out to that stream from this subdivision. The storm event that creates the flood to go on your property, the flooding does not occur until after the storm water flow comes off this road and packs it in the stream. If we were to put a detention pond on this property to retain the flow during the storm and then release it would only cause more damage to your property. In my opinion this subdivision does not create a flooding problem on to your property.

B. McDonnell: There property is up here and my property is down here. You're telling me that the road will not have water running off and not being absorbed by the property. There will be foundations and houses and their sheds and what ever they choose to put up it will not affect the drain off from up here down to here?

D. McGoey: No. I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you it will affect. It will run into the stream but it will pass under the culvert under the road before the stream rises and causes a problem.

B. McDonnell: I'm sorry. The stream already rises now and floods the property. My property is level in the springtime. It's flooded now and we've had a two year drought.

D. McGoey: What I'm telling you . . .

B. McDonnell: If you were out here during the spring . . .

D. McGoey: I'm not telling you your property doesn't flood. I know it does. I can tell it does but isn't not going to be as a result of the development of this property.

B. McDonnell: If you add anything whatsoever to that piece which it will, I will flood and I will flood into my basement and then I will have to take legal recourse so that I can sell my house. We have done a major addition on our property. We are trying as a young couple to build up equity in our home and I cannot suffer a loss of having a swimming pool in my basement because you will not attend to solving the problem.

D. McGoey: I gave you my opinion. The runoff from this property will pass through that stream before the stream peaks.

B. McDonnell: That stream is my stream. That is completely fronted by my property.

D. McGoey: I know. The contribution to that stream is from above your property, from properties way above your property and the elevation of the stream doesn't peak until the storm is over. By the time the storm is over the flow from the stream in the subdivision will have also passed under the culvert below your property. It is an engineering concept and it's obvious you don't understand it.

B. McDonnell: It's not that I don't understand. I've lived there for fourteen years and I can tell you when it floods.

D. McGoey: I agree it floods. If you want to set something up with Carol, we can talk about it in the office further and I will try and explain my position better.

H. Smith: I own Sycamore Farms on property next to the proposed Baum Subdivision. We are a commercial vegetable farm which is part of one of the largest industries in New York State (agriculture). In this business the byproducts that would not be compatible with neighbors are dust, noise and odors. Dust comes from plowing, discing, planting and cultivating the land. Even when no work is being done, dust blows with the prevailing winds across the more than one hundred acres of open field adjacent to this subdivision. Noise comes from the above mentioned operations as well as irrigation, spraying and harvesting the crops produced. The season for this work is most intense from mid March to mid November although other jobs go on the rest of the year. During the peak of the season, many of these jobs begin before dawn and last past sunset. Noise to protect the crops come from man or machine to keep birds out during the day or deer out at night. Some machines make distress calls, some sound like barking dogs and others are large bangs to keep the pests from destroying the crops. Odors also come from several operations including fertilizing with 25 plus tons of commercial fertilizer and over 200 tons of organic fertilizer (manure) annually. Spraying of the fields with herbicides, insecticides and fungicide also emit odors which could be perceived by neighbors as drift but is in fact an odor given off in the drying process. The last major odor comes from decaying vegetation which is incorporated into the soil to create more organic matter. For these reasons, we feel a buffer should be in place to protect all parties involved. Although we don't feel it is our responsibility to provide the buffer we believe so strongly in the need for one, we would be willing to discuss sharing the responsibility of creating a buffer. This natural buffer would not be cultivated, sprayed, or mowed in order to provide a barrier to prevent problems in the future. If my farm were to be inactive in the future, the barrier could be dissolved and become usable space for the property owners. Since the only lot that would be unable to support a buffer of this nature is lot #7, I propose the developer reconfigure the property, having Lot # 8 and Lot #6 absorb this lot and further dividing lot #9 which would leave the developer with the same amount of lots and a possibility for a decent buffer between the subdivision and the farm. This would be a workable solution. I request you strongly consider a buffer for this property and encourage the Town to incorporate buffers in further planned developments within agricultural districts. The future of agriculture in the Town of Wallkill is in your hands. It is my hope that you all appreciate the balance farms provide to our residential areas. If I can be of any further help in your determination, I am available so please feel free to contact me.

If you would like to discuss it further, I would be willing to.

G. Lake: I don't think anybody is arguing with you on that point whatsoever. I'm sorry if anybody got that impression.

H. Smith: I guess the confusion for us came since it was so long in not coming up again, we assumed that maybe something was going to be done and then at the last minute we realized the same plan was coming back again. That's why we got excited. Mr. Carr, I guess was out there today. It's quite obvious that the prevailing winds and the other farm next to this is a problem. We're not against development. We're just trying to survive.

G. Lake: Like I said, the confusion was, I didn't realize mailings went out.

H. Smith: And even with the Agricultural Data Statement even said there would be another one. That was the letter we got.

G. Lake: We're learning with this one right now. This has been fairly new to us.

T. Hamilton: Just going through our minutes there was a vote taken to close the Public Hearing. Then our part of the meeting where we discuss and see what we want and to get more input from our Engineers and so forth. We went through that part of the meeting. We tabled our part of the meeting where we didn't make any decision or vote because we wanted to review more. That's where the word Atabled@ shows. That's the only place it shows in the minutes.

B. McDonnell: Like I said, I was ignorant to the process. When I heard the word Atabled@ I assumed I would get another notice.

T. Hamilton: It was our part of the meeting that was tabled.

C. Elmes: I also have a farm a little bit up Bart Bull Road not too far from Mr. Smith. I basically am here to support him. I agree with the buffer. I would like to see the farms stay. As most of you know the farms use about thirty seven cents out of the dollar where the house uses $1.50 out of the tax base. I would like to see more farms stay and keep more agriculture here so the tax base stays. I hope you will consider the buffer.

J. Hoeffner: I am from Montgomery. I'm an active farmer and I'm Chairman of the Orange County Agricultural Farmland Protection Board. I have a letter here from Orange County Cooperative Extension of which I think you have a copy. When this project was coming up I had a conversation with John King and we were concerned about compatibility with the development and the farm. I think you people should consider this buffer zone and it's a friendly move and I think the Town should also be looking into some kind of farmland protection that write the farm laws. From what I understand from Mr. King, you will be looking to pursue something. If you would be in touch with our Board, we would try to help you in any way that we could.