MEETING

JUNE 5, 2002

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

MEMBERS ABSENT: A. Dulgarian, G. Monaco

OTHERS PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey

1. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING - 7:30 P.M. - WRIGHT - ZONE CHANGE REQUEST MI to RA - Bart Bull Road

G. Lake: Informational Public Hearing started at 7:38 P.M.

D. Yanosh: We are here tonight to represent Mrs. Wright who owns a fifty nine acre piece of parcel of land in the MI zone located on the westerly side of Bart Bull Road and the easterly side of Route 84. This property was recently in front of the Board a year or so ago for the recycling or composting business. At the time she had a buyer who wanted to buy the property. They had numerous meetings here at the Town and a lot of public dissent over the project. The person who had it backed out of the deal. The history of the property is she has owned it since 1987. Prior to that purchase she did come to the Board at one time to request a zone change. Back in 1988/1989 Wehran Engineering had done that plan right there for a five lot industrial subdivision. At the time again there was a lot of environmental concerns from the neighbors and the Planning Board looked at those requests and were requesting some costly environmental studies to be done and the long form SEQRA. Nobody knew what was going to go in there. They just wanted to subdivide it to make smaller lots for respective owners. A lot of opposition again from the people around. The RA zone is across the street on Bart Bull Road and all the neighbors in the area came out and, I believe Amy Bull Crist was here also at that time. Again the project got shelved because of the costly studies that had to be done to satisfy all the neighboring people.

T. Milo: Additionally the Planning Department in Goshen had recommended that it be changed at that time.

G. Lake: To what, RA?

T. Milo: To RA.

D. Yanosh: The lot right next to it right here is also in the RA zone.

G. Lake: On the same side?

T. Milo: On the same side of Bart Bull Road.

D. Yanosh: Again, you have the Route 84 corridor which separates the rest of the MI from the other side. We feel it is better for the neighborhood because everybody that came here before had trouble getting approvals either from the Board or engineering standpoints or satisfying the neighbors. She has owned the land since 1987 and it is tough finding somebody to buy a piece of property when they know the history that they are going to have a hard time coming before the Board. No matter what they try to put in there, everybody complained about traffic and noise and pollution. It is in a remote area. It's a little close to Route 84 but the interchange is quite a ways away. There are no town services out there. If you wanted to put up a motel, hotel or something like that, a bigger building, even though the soils are good there are no town services for something of that nature in that area. At this time we are requesting that the Board review this and recommend a zone change from MI to RA.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board.

P. Owen: Nothing at this time.

R. Carr: I will wait.

G. Luenzmann: No.

T. Hamilton: Wait for the public.

MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 7:42 P.M. made by T. Hamilton and seconded by R. Carr.

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

5 AYES. Motion carried.

T. Hamilton: I've had some discussions with some of the members of the Town Board on what they are looking to do in that area out there. Like Mr. Yanosh said, there is no water, no sewer. It's not really close to any of the interchanges. It's kind of hard to market it. I think some of the feelings that I got after speaking to some of the Board members was that they were kind of looking towards going to the RA area out there. That is the feeling I got. I think Gary can elaborate a little more on it.

R. Carr: I think that given that the timing of this and that the Town Board has started a committee to re-look at the Master Plan I don't know if this is part of it. I haven't been privy to anything about what they are planning to do.

G. Luenzmann: I do agree with the comments that you made. We have had a lot of comments from the public any time that land was trying to develop.

G. Lake: Myself I've always been kind of against changing MI to anything else because we don't replace it. But at the same token, the Town has hired a planner, as you know. We are spending a lot of money with that planner and I think the best thing I think that we can do here before we start introducing a bunch of zone changes throughout the Town is I think this aught at least be reviewed by the new planner before. We're only recommending to the Town Board so it's going to be another couple of weeks and maybe the new planner will look at this and will give us some thought. At this point my own feeling would be is not to jump the gun but send it to the new planner at least, try to get his input and then go from there.

D. Yanosh: What you want to do is wait maybe a month or so have the planner look at it.

G. Lake: I think it is up to you.

T. Milo: When might the planner be coming out with his proposal?

G. Lake: I have worked on these planning committees a couple of times. You know yourself Tom, it's a ton of work to compile everything throughout the sixty four square miles of the Town. I really don't know where he is. I think eventually the Planning Board will get to meet him and sit down with him. I think he's at the point where of just compiling information.

T. Milo: Is there a projection as to when he's supposed to submit a plan?

G. Lake: I believe he does have a contract but I don't know what it is. I don't know what the time frames are. Like I said at this point the only thing that I can really tell you that I do know is that he is compiling the information that he feels he needs. I think that's where I stand. At this point in time with zone changes I would like to get the new planner involved. I would hate to see us do something now.

T. Hamilton: Is there any way that we can initiate a letter to the new planner requesting him to review this application being it's before us now so we can at least this parcel done and how it fits in and not wait until the whole town.

G. Lake: We are already doing that on a couple others.

T. Hamilton: Rather than wait until the whole study is done.

T. Milo: That's fair. Either he can say yes, no or we have to wait longer.

G. Lake: Maybe we can get a time frame for you.

RECOMMEND to send this request back to the TOWN BOARD, that we wish to have it sent to the new planner to let him compile the information and see where he thinks it might go made by G. Lake and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

5 AYES. Motion carried.

2. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - WALLKILL TOWN CENTER - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - Dunning/Schutt Roads (50-2-58) #012-002

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:50 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 June 5, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the application of

J. O'Rourke: I am from Lanc & Tully Engineering. We were as you mentioned here before you last month with the continuation of the Public Hearing for the proposed subdivision of the Price Chopper/Groo Shoes subdivision. We had done this previously with the Circuit City and Price Chopper back in 1996. It is the same concept basically. We are creating a subdivision lot line change for financial purposes.

G. Lake: You had to come back though because you didn't do the publishing.

J. O'Rourke: That's correct.

G. Lake: Do you have evidence that you did that?

J. O'Rourke: Yes. I submitted it. Also at that time there were some minor outstanding issues with your consultants. We've worked with the engineer and your attorney and I think we've resolved the legal issues with the cross easements and the required notes concerning the walkway with the proposed senior citizen development adjacent to our parcel.

G. Lake: The only other notes he has on here is the as-built and location of the sewer.

J. O'Rourke: Yes. We have shown those manholes on it.

G. Lake: I will go to the Board before the public.

P. Owen: I don't have al problem with this application.

R. Carr: No.

G. Luenzmann: I don't have any problems.

T. Hamilton: No.

G. Lake: Anybody from the public?

MOTION made to close this Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. made by R. Carr and seconded by P. Owen.

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

5 AYES. Motion carried.

G. Lake: Back to the Board, anything else? Dick, are you satisfied?

D. McGoey: Yes. He has to revise one note that has to do with the sidewalks to be sure that both lots are responsible for constructing them.

J. O'Rourke: We have actually done that. I faxed them over to the attorney today.

G. Barone: That's correct.

MOTION for SITE PLAN made by T. Hamilton and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

5 AYES. Motion carried.

3. OAK HILL MANOR - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - EXTENSION - #006-090

T. DePew: If you recall, we received an approval back in December. We had some outstanding technical issues which I think have been settled up. I think the only item we're waiting on is the approval of the bond amount by the Town Board and then we can proceed with the project. We just need an extension because we haven't received that yet.

G. Lake: Will this probably be the only one you will need?

T. DePew: Yes.

G. Lake: Any questions from the Board?

R. Carr: I just want to understand. You need the extension on the Site Plan approval?

G. Lake: On everything. Basically he got tied up with what the bond should be.

T. DePew: I don't know.

D. McGoey: That's not a problem with the Town Board. That's between the consultants, Tom, myself and others.

G. Lake: You've been working on that and it is now straightened out. This would be the only extension and is a filed map.

R. Carr: What are we extending?

T. DePew: Actually you're extending the Special Use Permit because the Site Plan and Subdivision had already been filed.

R. Carr: Okay, and this was done in December?

T. DePew: Right.

G. Lake: Anybody else?

MOTION for a ONE YEAR EXTENSION subject to D. McGoey's comments made by P. Owen and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

5 AYES. Motion carried.

4. COURTYARD AT MARRIOTT - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - EXTENSION #044-001

T. DePew: We were granted Site Plan and Special Use Permit in December. Basically what happened was I've had High Hotels write a letter. They had taken bids on the project. It was slightly over priced. They put it back out to bid. They are going to awards the contracts in about a week. The project is a go. Six months have elapsed, so we are looking for the extension. They are actually going to take title to the land next week and they will probably start construction in July. Dick had a question. I think we had answered all the outstanding technical questions.

D. McGoey: We just don't have signed maps yet.

T. DePew: Right.

D. McGoey: I just have to check my own comments.

T. Hamilton: What happened to the temporary extra parking for Outback and what ever?

T. DePew: That was one of the comments that once it gets constructed if it's deemed necessary PCM will provide on lot #4.

T. Hamilton: What was that now, if it was deemed necessary?

T. DePew: Yes.

T. Hamilton: It's deemed necessary. I've been there.

T. DePew: Okay.

D. McGoey: My notes say overflow parking lot on lot #4 with base course asphalt.

T. DePew: That was after we constructed the motel because we were sharing the parking across there.

T. Hamilton: But it will be constructed.

T. DePew: That's not the way I understood it.

G. Lake: I believe that's what we thought.

D. McGoey: That's what my notes say.

T. Hamilton: They need it now.

G. Lake: I think this Board really thought that it was going to be constructed as part of the shared parking agreement with everybody.

T. DePew: I thought the question was that when we built the motel there was going to be additional parking near that would overflow into that. If that did not work then they would agree to pave the lot #4 as required.

G. Lake: Between now and when I sign the map we will check the minutes and if the minutes indicate you were willing to do it.

T. DePew: Okay.

G. Lake: Anything else?

MOTION for a ONE YEAR EXTENSION subject to D. McGoey's comments made by R. Carr and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

5 AYES. Motion carried.

5. HUDSON HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - EXTENSION #014-001

H. Allen: I'm an engineer representing Hudson Heritage Federal Credit Union. As you know, we were here November 7th of last year. We received Site Plan/Special Use Permit approval with conditions at that point. The main condition was to receive Corps of Engineer approval of mitigation plans since there were some wetlands on the site. That has been what has taken us the last six months. I'm delighted to report we received that as of today. The mitigation plan had been submitted. It was approved as of this week by the Corps of Engineers. I'm here to, I believe, ask for an extension but at the same time hopefully have the qualifications that were put on the original application removed subject to Dick reviewing the information. I'm prepared to give him a copy of the letter and the drawings tonight for him to review.

T. Hamilton: The other comments, the fire department.

D. McGoey: It was what the fire department wanted.

H. Allen: We did receive, we sent drawings to the Mechanicstown Fire Department. Robert Hicks wrote us back a letter with a couple of requirements. They weren't requirements. The letter specifically said that he recommended that to reduce the credit union's insurance rates. We suggested that they look at sprinkling the building even though we recognized it was not required per code. Our engineers talked with Mr. Hicks and the Credit Union explained that the sprinkling did not reduce their insurance rates and they respectfully asked if they could simply follow the code which does not require sprinkling of the building.

D. McGoey: He wanted a knock box also and

H. Allen: A standpipe. Those basically go along with the sprinkler.

G. Lake: What box?

D. McGoey: Knock box which is a key.

H. Allen: We can certainly comply with that.

G. Lake: Is this a picture of the rendering?

H. Allen: No. I had pictures. I brought just two boards that show the mitigation plan. I think you would be interested in it.

G. Lake: Yes.

H. Allen: What occurred was this is the Wallkill Industrial Park. This is Crystal Run. This is Rykowski Lane that goes through the park. As you know there are several buildings here already. This is the site that the Credit Union is proposing. We kind of became the whistle blower sort of speak when we alerted the Corps that we thought that there were some wetlands on the Credit Union site. They came out and they discovered not only were there some wetlands here but there had been some wetlands that had inadvertently been disturbed during previous construction. What the plan came up with shows that they came up with five small areas of wetlands that they would like to be re-mediated. One had been previously disturbed over here. One had been previously disturbed when the culvert was put through underneath the road. A small one right here that would be for the Credit Union and then two other areas here that if they got approval to disturb those would make these lots very build-able. So, there were five small areas that totaled less than half an acre. What the proposal was consisted of mitigating those on the southern side or back end of the site near the Wallkill River. The proposal was to re-mediate by creating one acre of new wetlands right here. In other words, a two for one. Disturb half an acre and create one new acre that would connect these wetlands together. I think it's a very nice plan and quite frankly it sort of corrects some past sins. It corrects our present situation and it takes care of two lots in the future.

G. Lake: You have that approval now?

H. Allen: Yes we do. The reason we're anxious to move ahead is over the past few months we have basically completed the building drawings. We would like to as quickly as possible get in front of the Town and get a Building Permit because we would like to be under construction as soon as possible to take advantage of this season.

G. Lake: Is there anything else from the Board?

P. Owen: No.

R. Carr: Nothing.

G. Luenzmann: No.

T. Hamilton: No.

MOTION for a ONE YEAR EXTENSION made by R. Carr and seconded by T. Hamilton.

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

5 AYES. Motion carried.

6. HEIMBACH - 5 LOT SUBDIVISION - Maples Road/The Lane (36-2-24.2) #046-001

C. Fotty: We have a parcel of land on Maples Road of approximately 10.45 acres. We are proposing to subdivide it into five lots with individual wells and individual sewers.

G. Lake: You've been here. You've had your Public Hearing. There were a few items that has taken a lot to get straightened out. Dick, you have seven items here tonight.

D. McGoey: Yes. One item that I've asked the Planning Board to look at is the wetlands on the lot #5 and the impact that they have on the dwelling unit. The property owner would be unable to build a deck on the rear of the house. Is there any way to shift that house?

C. Fotty: Definitely, yes. I was just looking at that. It can be shifted all the way towards the side yard and have the driveway come in off the other side. It can be shifted a good forty feet.

D. McGoey: Everybody wants a deck, everybody wants a patio. Something in the back of their house. Other than that the rest of these issues can be resolved between now and final approval. You are only in Preliminary right now.

C. Fotty: #2 I would suggest that we perhaps put a note on that the construction be done to improve the site line distance prior to final approval. In other words, give us the ability to actually grade and clear the site line distance rather than going in with some sort of legal contract between one lot owner to the other lot owner.

G. Barone: One of the problems with doing that if you have appropriate restrictions that after the site clearing is done, there are restrictions on the vegetation being grown there, shrubs, hedges, tree plantings, parking of vehicles, fences. It needs to be in a combination on the map.

C. Fotty: I guess a note could be put on the plan that this area once it is graded and cleared shall be kept in such a manner as not to obstruct site distance.

G. Barone: Right. As long as there are appropriate restrictions so people don't have to guess what that means.

G. Lake: Why don't we get that note? You have to go to the Health Department any way.

C. Fotty: Right.

G. Lake: Let's get a note that's going on the plan and let's get it into Mr. Barone for his review to make sure it is simple, makes sure it is straightforward so the people understand exactly what's going to happen if they buy this land. Does that sound okay, that way you have time to research and make sure it's correct.

G. Barone: Certainly.

G. Lake: Is there anything else you wanted to put in that note specific to start with?

G. Barone: My preference would be to have a recorded easement.

T. Hamilton: The only thing with it that we have to maintain it.

G. Barone: It would be up to the property owners to maintain it. It wouldn't be dedicated to the Town. It would remain with the lot owners land but what ever vegetation is planted there. It's up to Dick, if he wants appropriate restrictions on vegetation. What ever Dick is happy with then I will draft a note for the final plan.

T. Hamilton: We have drainage easements and the Town goes in and maintains them.

G. Barone: This is different.

D. McGoey: You can require the property owner to maintain it.

G. Barone: Correct.

G. Lake: You will need to talk to Mr. Barone and that way we can make sure that the language is correct.

P. Owen: I have nothing right now.

R. Carr: I wasn't on the Board when it first came in. This is lot #5 is going to the barn and the garage?

C. Fotty: Yes.

P. Owen: You're planning on twisting around the house.

C. Fotty: Yes.

R. Carr: There is also a shed encroachment.

C. Fotty: Basically it is going to be a lot line change. We are going to get rid of these encroachments.

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Nothing.

G. Lake: Dick?

D. McGoey: I'm fine.

G. Lake: With this lot line, this encroachment wasn't that supposed to be taken care of by now?

D. McGoey: I wasn't aware of the encroachment. You will have to solve it between now and final approval.

G. Lake: Do you see it?

D. McGoey: I see it now.

C. Fotty: Basically the way it sits now we would take care of the encroachments by moving the lot line.

G. Lake: So, you are asking for this also, this line change?

C. Fotty: That's correct.

D. McGoey: The line change is already on this.

G. Lake: Does anybody have anything else?

MOTION for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by R. Carr and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

5 AYES. Motion carried.

MOTION for PRELIMINARY APPROVAL subject to all comments made by G. Lake and seconded by R. Carr.

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

5 AYES. Motion carried.