TOWN
OF WALLKILL PLANNING BOARD
MEETING
JULY 3, 2002
MEMBERS
PRESENT: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, G. Luenzmann,
P. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Hamilton, G. Monaco
OTHERS PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey
1. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING
DISTRICT
G. Lake: Informational Public Hearing started at 7:35 P.M.
D. McGoey: The zone changes were essentially made to the bulk
tables in the RA, R-2, M-1 and PID districts. In general, the
Board is considering expanding the lot widths, lot depths, front
yard, side year, rear yards increasing the lot areas in the
zones. For example, in the M-1 district the minimum lot size
was formerly 20,000 square feet. It will be increased to 40,000
square feet. The same in the PID zone. Lot widths in the R-2
district will be increased from ninety feet to one hundred fifty
feet. Lot depths from one hundred to two hundred feet. Livable
floor area in dwelling units from six hundred feet to one thousand
square feet. The lot areas under the soils formula which is
soil based for lot sizes have essentially been doubled. For
example, in the group 1 soils from half an acre to an acre.
Group 2 soils from three quarters of an acre to one acre and
a half. What the Board is attempting to do is to consider larger
lots, wider lots.
A. Green: What is it in RA?
D. McGoey: The RA district is soil based. It went from forty
thousand square feet to two acres.
G. Lake: We also sent this over to the new planner that the
Town has hired. We did get a response saying that at this time
it looks like something he will be heading into soon.
A. Dulgarian: Is there any kind of a time table on the whole
thing?
G. Lake: I believe it is going to be a two year process. I
believe right now they are gathering
all kinds of information. It is a big job.
A. Green: The full project will be about two years. What we
are doing tonight, we would like implemented as soon as possible.
G. Lake: The Town Board does that. We just make the recommendation.
A. Green: I understand that but I’m saying the whole procedure
is not two years.
G. Lake: I will open it to the public now. We are just making
a recommendation to the Town Board.
A. Green: I just want to urge the Planning Board to work with
the Town Board as they go through changes. I think it’s
important. We need to keep the rural character of this Town
as much as we can and we need to make some changes now so we
can slow down a little bit.
G. Lake: As I said before, we have. I just don’t think
people realize it but we have been insisting on bigger lots
right along. In the bigger subdivisions, I know we haven’t
even allowed less frontage. We’ve been doing a lot of
this already.
N. Hermann: You stated that the minimum lot parcel was one acre?
D. McGoey: Previously.
N. Hermann: I know subdivisions that were done in recent history
that were allowed to be done on less than an acre per lot.
D. McGoey: They haven’t been legally then, I will tell
you that.
N. Hermann: Again, the new change will fall under the bigger
criteria.
D. McGoey: There are zones. The R-1 district allows less than
an acre.
N. Hermann: I’m talking RA.
D. McGoey: RA is to be not less than forty thousand square feet.
N. Hermann: 210 x 210 if you want to square it off. I just
want to make sure that the criteria is followed to the letter.
It certainly hasn’t been done in the past. I would like
to make sure it is done now.
A. Dulgarian: The applicant who ever it would be, can still
seek relief from the Zoning, correct?
G. Barone: They can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, petition
for an area variance.
G. Lake: Anybody else?
MOTION to close the INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING at 7:41 P.M.
made by G. Lake and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
5 AYES.
A. Dulgarian: No.
P. Owen: The only thing is the projects that are coming in before
us, we’ve really have not been sending out. A lot of times
what we end of doing is making the applicant decrease the amount
of lots so that they would have larger lots. As far as doing
that, that’s part of our discretion. I just don’t
really like the idea of taking away the discretion from this
Board.
D. McGoey: Just let me add to that. It’s not necessarily
at our discretion. It has happened because of our insistence
but I think as Mr. Barone will be able to tell you that if the
ordinance says you have a one hundred foot lot width, we would
be hard pressed if the applicant chooses not to go with two
hundred foot lot width. We’ve been successful because
we’ve found reasons why with the character of the neighborhood,
etc.
P. Owen: It’s part of our. . .
D. McGoey: To have it stated in the ordinance gives you the
power to require it and not just ask for it.
P. Owen: Then, we’re hard pressed if there is an application
before us that doesn’t necessarily meet.
D. McGoey: Then they would have to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
R. Carr: I would say generally I favor the increasing in the
zoning requirements. At the same time I think we have to recognize
the interests of the property owners. My other concern is,
I agree with you about slowing or at least leaving the rural
character. I feel that some sort of planning with clustering
where you can have a development which doesn’t impact as
much on the country roads that we all enjoy.
G. Luenzmann: I agree with the goal to make sure that we continue
the rural character of our area. It shall be noted that all
the communities or most of the communities that I’m aware
of are doing the same thing. If we go to one acre, that’s
not very much compared to what our communities are doing. I
think the biggest problem we have in Orange County is sprawl,
more than jobs, more than transportation, it’s sprawl.
We have to as Planning Boards think about what this is going
to look like twenty or forty years from now. Is it going to
be a livable place? Is it going to be some place that we’re
going to enjoy or is it just going to be a congested traffic
jam. Actually what I think this recommendation is attempting
to do is to set a higher threshold for lot sizes. The Town
Board will have to come up clustering and uses in certain zones.
I think this is the first step.
G. Lake: My colleagues have hit it on the head. I have a lady
on my road who banked the land for her retirement. I know something
like this, if she didn’t already subdivide it she would
be hurt pretty much. I’m just glad to see the planner
said that this is something that he will continue to look at
as it goes through.
MOTION to make recommendation to Town Board to approve amendments
to zoning districts made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by R.
Carr.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Abstained
R. Carr: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
4 AYES, 1 ABSTENTION.
A. Dulgarian: I agree with the intent of what we are looking
to accomplish here but I hope that, if you have a thirty six
acre parcel, fine. If we have pre-existing lots, I hope that
zone planning would take into consideration that this is a pre-existing
lot prior to the new zoning.
This poor man who has owned that property all of a sudden needs
to seek relief, granted he can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
but I hope that’s what is going to be expected.
D. McGoey: There are provisions in the ordinance that allows
development on pre-existing, non-conforming lots.
A. Dulgarian: That was my big issue. I don’t mind if someone
has a thirty six acre parcel where he can do eighteen homes
instead of twenty four, that’s great.
G. Lake: I agree with you.
A. Dulgarian: I hope that it will be passed on.
G. Lake: I think we will also draft a letter to the Town Board.
2. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - MAPLES FARM - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL
USE PERMIT - Route 17M (36-2-10) #026-002
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 the 3rd day of July, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. or
as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the
application of Dan Keller, Maples Farm Route 17M, Middletown,
New York for approval of storage building, bulk yard expansion
and shed sales, expansion at Maples Farms, Route 27M, Maples
Road under Section 249-39 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
M. Fellenzer: I’m a principal in Fellenzer Engineering
in Middletown. This Public Hearing is for Maples Farms on the
corner of Maples Road and Route 17M. We’re here for the
purpose of expanding the bulk yard, expanding the shed sales
area, and the construction of a storage building on the property.
G. Lake: Before I go to the Public, I will go through the Board.
A. Dulgarian: Not until after the Public Hearing.
P. Owen: I will wait.
R. Carr: I will wait.
G. Luenzmann: I will wait.
G. Lake: Is there much left to do?
M. Fellenzer: Yes. In terms of our discussions?
G. Lake: In terms of what needs to be done? I will go to the
Public at this time.
J. Ingrassia: I own the house on the property right along side
Maples Garden Center. I’m not here to fight against what
he wants to do but what I’m here to bring to the attention
of the public, there’s a big parking problem there. I
can’t get out of my driveway half the time. I have a daughter
and a granddaughter who lives there and I’ve almost gotten
hit two or three times. They park right on Route 17M.
R. Carr: Where are you?
J. Ingrassia: I’m right on Route 17M, right along side
him. I’ve spoken to the State. I’ve spoken to the
Town. One passes me off to the other on the parking situation
there. Like I say, I’m not against what they want to do
but something should be done with the parking situation. It’s
very dangerous.
G. Lake: We’ve had this discussion a couple of times already
with our Engineer. We are going to hit on it again tonight.
We are aware of that.
J. Ingrassia: I’m not against anything else except for
the fact of that parking and no one has ever tried to address
it with me. It’s just not right. Somebody is going to
get hurt pretty bad there one of these days.
MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 7:55 P.M. made by A.
Dulgarian and seconded by R. Carr.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
Motion carried. 5 AYES
G. Lake: Do you have Dick’s comments?
M. Fellenzer: Yes.
G. Lake: Do you want to go through them?
M. Fellenzer: Yes. In terms of the future building that we
had discussed at one time to be requested to be put on the plan
but we talked about taking it off. I had further discussions
with Dan. He’s thinking that it may happen next summer.
On that basis, it was too late to have another meeting with
Dick regarding it but we left it on in that it would probably
be within the one year period from the potential approval of
the work. It is better than having to come back again in six
or seven months with it back on the plan. He would rather have
it on the approved site plan. That addresses one of the comments.
D. McGoey: Why don’t we have the details for that building?
M. Fellenzer: They need to be added. You’re correct.
This happened kind of late in the process so there wasn’t
time in order to get it on the plans. That work still has to
be done. The details for the handicap parking. We want to
talk about parking entirely on the site and paving limits.
Those are kind of the open items.
G. Lake: How about item #1, the equipment rental sales.
M. Fellenzer: Yes. I don’t believe any more of them have
been often displayed out there in terms of rental but we can
add to the plan and dedicate an area and establish a criteria
for it. Again, I’m a little confused as far as the square
footage and going to the zoning on how we are going to do that
in terms of working with the existing zoning. I do need to
set up a work session with the Town Engineer to go through how
that would be established and what square footage we would use
for the number of parking spaces. In terms of the paving issue
and the sales area. The owner of the property has chosen not
to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and to maintain the existing
setback lines for the shed sales area. In terms of the paving,
I asked him to come. He has a great concern about doing a lot
of paving in the bulk storage area because of the type of equipment
that’s moving. Typically, it’s probably an area that
the parking regulations probably don’t quite match what’s
done there. Typically small dump trucks are coming in. He
has great concern about chewing up any of the paving that’s
done there. He would like to offer additional paving and improvements
of the parking area more up where the main store is and really
where the gentleman discussed as a problem. He thinks it’s
more appropriate that the paving be done in the areas where
he has high traffic versus an area where he has actually very
little consumer parking going in. We’re open for suggestions,
discussions on it. I know that you are very clear what your
zoning is and then was very clear to him that a certain sized
parking lot requires paving. This may be a discussion about
the location of all these additional parking spaces that are
being developed. Maybe there is a more appropriate location
on site that they could be put to.
G. Lake: It’s not the Planning Board’s job to design
the site.
M. Fellenzer: I understand that.
G. Lake: Let’s face it, he has an awful lot crammed in.
M. Fellenzer: We divided up the site based on some different
zoning areas.
G. Lake: How many people are going to park in the bulk storage
area?
M. Fellenzer: That’s what I am saying and that’s why
I would like to discuss it is that the bulk storage is in the
. . .
G. Lake: I think and it’s only me right now, I will talk
to the Board in a minute, but I think the last time you were
here we did talk about the parking and some of the events that
he has.
He just draws thousands of people. He just packs them in.
M. Fellenzer: I guess one of things in terms of and maybe it’s
not appropriate in front of the Board but maybe it’s more
appropriate with the Town Engineer but in the PID district,
we broken the site up because it falls in two districts. The
HC and the PID. Since the bulk storage is in the PID and it’s
a permitted use in the PID the amount of parking follows the
outdoor sales and storage area requirements of the Town. I
guess I would be asking the Board’s opinion if we feel
that’s its more appropriate that most of those slots or
many slots be allocated more closer to where most of the people
traffic is, whether it’s a problem on a site to have that
parking or some of it re-oriented to a different district on
the same parcel.
G. Lake: You decide to pick the areas between the two zones.
This Board does not have the power. You can seek relief from
the Zoning Board on that. I don’t think this Board can
do that.
M. Fellenzer: Does it matter where it’s located?
D. McGoey: No, it doesn’t.
M. Fellenzer: So if I have the bulk yard requirements for parking
located up near the main building which is where I think more
of the parking issues are in terms of problems. I believe that
is what we are talking about and I would hate to see a situation
here where we meet the letter of the law but maybe not the intent.
I would be happy to resubmit a parking plan to the Town Engineer
in a work session, a parking plan that I think more closely
represents the demand the local consumer puts on the site.
We can certainly have a couple of alternatives and look at to
try and solve that problem. That may also solve Dan’s
concern about paving because it may make less slots in one area
and more in another.
G. Lake: I think what Dan has to accept is that there has to
be some kind of a traffic flow through there.
M. Fellenzer: I agree.
G. Lake: If it means stepping down and taking some of the traffic
off of Route 17M. I think at some point he’s going to
have to address it. Let me go through the Board. I think we
have already decided that you need another work session.
M. Fellenzer: Absolutely.
A. Dulgarian: I will reiterate that the plan is very inadequate.
When we’re looking at that parking up front should we be
able to locate it somewhere else on the property or should the
applicant be able to locate it somewhere else on the property.
I think that it’s very important that signage be included
for the people who have been used to parking across the street,
in front. I think the parking spots should be marked with signage
leading directly to the parking spots. We have parking for
this site across North Street on the other side of those storage
sheds, correct?
G. Lake: They park there but it’s not part of this plan.
A. Dulgarian: I know that.
G. Lake: I don’t even know if he owns that property.
M. Fellenzer: He does not.
A. Dulgarian: We probably should address that also with signage.
Same way with the other side of Maples Road. He needs to really
address the safety issues. Back in the bulk storage area.
We’re talking strictly landscaping type, not salt or anything
like that, correct?
M. Fellenzer: No. It’s typically different kinds of stones,
some stone wall materials . It’s typically things that
homeowners are not picking up in the truck of their cars.
A. Dulgarian: Does he intend to change his hours of operation
when he has bulk trucks in the back? My only concern is maybe
a landscaper starts at five in the morning and he’s going
to be running equipment and loading stuff, there’s some
houses there. I would just be concerned about the hours of
operations. The only other thing is and I know Dick reviewed
it, that the lighting doesn’t affect any of the neighbors.
D. McGoey: Right.
P. Owen: My main concern is the parking issue and it’s
got to be addressed.
R. Carr: Likewise, the parking. I just want to understand,
is all of the paving being paved?
M. Fellenzer: It’s really for discussion tonight. He obviously
wanted to direct most of the paving, the requirements that he
has more toward the area of the store. I think that’s
why we want to discuss that.
R. Carr: This is for our Attorney. The way the regulations
read, parking over twenty has to be paved. Can you have ten
here and fifteen here?
G. Barone: Correct.
R. Carr: That would be just a zoning issue. Any of the parking
has to be paved.
D. McGoey: All of it.
R. Carr: Yes. All of it has to be paved. That’s a main
issue.
G. Luenzmann: I think the whole problem is a parking issue.
I think there should be some goals to not park on the road.
There should be plenty of off-road access. If you look at the
parking right here, it wouldn’t take long to fill it up
and then people would be forced to park on the road. If you
need more parking then you probably need parking all up and
down instead of just in these spots. It’s definitely a
parking issue.
A. Dulgarian: I just remembered with another applicant, I believe
it was a church, we required them to blacktop a certain amount
of parking spaces. Then when they had a special function, we
let them have a parking area that was just designated for overflow.
It was just a nice flat area. It did not have to be blacktopped.
That may be something this applicant should look at because
three hundred fifty days of the year this may be fine but for
ten days of the year he may need overflow parking somewhere
and I don’t think he should have to pave that. I know
we have done that with other applicants.
M. Fellenzer: It’s only the required parking. The required
number of spots would be paved. It would show additional slots
beyond the required.
MOTION to TABLE this application for another work session with
applicant waiving time frame made by G. Luenzmann and seconded
by A. Dulgarian.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
Motion carried. 5 AYES
3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 P.M. - ANDRIES - 4 LOT SUBDIVISION
- Highland Lake Road (64-1-47.321) #023-002
G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 8:12 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 3rd day of July, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. or
as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the
application of Vladamir Andries, Highland Lake Road, for approval
of a four lot subdivision at Highland Lake Road, one half mile
north of Mount Hope Road under the Subdivision Regulations of
the Town of Wallkill. All parties of interest will be heard
at said time and place. S/Gary Lake, Chairman
M. Fellenzer: I’m a principal in Fellenzer Engineering.
We’re here tonight to discuss the Andries four lot subdivision.
G. Lake: Do you want to just give us a brief discussion?
M. Fellenzer: Sure. Following our last meeting, we had discussion
regarding the Watson configurations on the property. After
discussion, I think we came to a configuration or suggested
configuration that everyone might be able to review and possibly
agree upon. Basically it is two hundred feet of frontage on
Highland Lake Road with the third lot being located in a flag
configuration. We’ve produced that plan for discussion.
I have received Mr. McGoey’s comments and concur with them.
The reason we didn’t develop it a lot further is we wanted
to make sure that the configuration itself is what we had talked
about and give you an opportunity to look at that.
G. Lake: I think you are one hundred percent right on that.
We wanted to open up the frontage. Before I go to the Public,
I will go through the Board.
A. Dulgarian: You know how I feel about flag lots but I’ve
seen worse.
P. Owen: I like the new configuration a lot better.
R. Carr: I have no problem with the flag lots.
G. Luenzmann: I have no problem with flag lots and the configuration
looks fine to me.
G. Lake: I don’t have a problem with the flag lot. As
a matter of fact, it will probably be the first lot sold.
MOTION to close the PUBLIC HEARING at 8:16 P.M. made by A. Dulgarian
and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
Motion carried. 5 AYES
MOTION to TABLE this application with applicant waiving time
frame made by R. Carr and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
Motion carried. 5 AYES
4. PETRAKIS - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - Dosen Road (14-1-18.2)
#049-002
K. Petrakis: I am proposing a two lot subdivision on Dosen Road.
I want to make a home for my sister and a home for myself on
this property. It’s roughly fourteen acres divided into
two. One conforming lot and one flag lot. It is a reasonable
size and a nice property. We’re only looking for the two
homes.
G. Lake: Did you get a copy of all the comments Dick made?
K. Petrakis: Yes. From a work session I had some comments and
then we’ve had some additional comments on the 27th
that I also received however, I didn’t have much time to
do anything on the paper work for that. I did speak to him briefly
about it and I am willing to address any concerns and certainly
conform to any standards that need to be done.
D. McGoey: The big issue is the site distance on the driveway.
I went out there today and it is a problem. I’m not sure
how it can be solved without cutting down the road. There’s
a rise in the road right in front of the adjoining dwelling
unit which limits the site distance in that direction.
R. Carr: Is that correct?
D. McGoey: It probably is.
K. Petrakis: One is two fifty and one is two eighty.
D. McGoey: This driveway isn’t so bad. As a matter of
fact, if you can push both the driveways down here on this side
I wouldn’t have so much of a problem.
R. Carr: Why would you put or consider putting this house here
further back?
K. Petrakis: These are just figures that the Engineer proposed
that you would like. In other words, I initially wanted both
driveways down by this other end. However, she said that wouldn’t
look as good on paper as this does with the small lot being
up front. In other words, I wanted the small lot to be on the
other side of that and both driveways coming in on the other
end. She suggested that this would aesthetically be much more
pleasing and conform to the lots that are already in place there.
R. Carr: Personally I feel that squeezes in. You have all that
property and you squeeze that house between the two existing.
You’ve got all this over here. To me it is squeezed between
the two houses right on that end.
K. Petrakis: That would probably fit it very nicely with the
other homes going along the road and the homes will be up, visible
and parallel with the road side and will probably blend in actually
pretty nice. It’s going to fit in between two nice homes.
G. Lake: Dick, did you have a work session with him?
D. McGoey: Yes, we had a work session.
K. Petrakis: We think if we keep one home right there it’s
going to blend right in with the line of homes down the road.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with that but there’s
actually a ton of homes all along in front of this area and
some of them are very close to the road and very close to other
properties. Actually that lot is probably the biggest other
lot in those adjoining properties. It’s three times the
required size.
G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A. Dulgarian: I think there is a better way to do this. I’m
not sure what it is but it does look a little cramped to me.
I not just saying that because of the flag lot. There’s
a lot of room here.
G. Lake: Do you know if your architect or surveyor just put
this on here to show that it would fit or is that the applicable
placement of the house?
K. Petrakis: That’s where that home would be located.
The soils back behind this other area are not very favorable.
The soils in this other area are very favorable but once you
start making that lot, it changes everything.
P. Owen: I’m going to agree with Mr. Dulgarian. I think
there’s got to be a better way of doing this proposal.
R. Carr: I have nothing else.
G. Luenzmann: I just had a question for Dick. Did you look
at this? You had a concern about the site distance?
D. McGoey: Yes.
G. Luenzmann: Did you have any idea what could be done to alleviate
that?
D. McGoey: The only thing I can see is if you could move the
driveways together where the driveway for lot #1 is and maximize
the site distance. It’s still not great.
G. Luenzmann: You would have to re-design.
D. McGoey: The lot layout would have to be re-designed.
G. Luenzmann: That does seem like it would solve the problem.
D. McGoey: It would help.
G. Luenzmann: My answer is that I have a concern about the site
distance.
K. Petrakis: I do want to point out that the minimum required
site distance for that is two hundred thirty five feet and I
have two hundred fifty. I’m in excess of the required
site distance already. I have that documented on the paper
work as per the engineer’s request.
D. McGoey: That is not based on the prevailing speed.
K. Petrakis: Not on prevailing speed but on the posted speed
limit and I’m in excess of the posted speed limit not to
mention the fact that there are other driveways all across from
and around.
D. McGoey: Those driveways don’t have the site distance
problems that this driveway does.
G. Lake: Personally if the guy wants to put his house there,
that’s up to him. That doesn’t bother me one way
or the other. The driveway issue that our engineer is trying
to help you here as far as avoiding any headaches down the road,
I think what he is asking you to do and I think the Board is
going to ask you to do is just look and see if they can swing
that and have a common driveway. Am I correct on that, Dick?
D. McGoey: Yes, that’s essentially right.
G. Lake: Then all you would have to do is to give an easement.
Correct Mr. Barone?
G. Barone: That is correct.
G. Lake: Give the easement so that whoever owns the house today
or five years down the road, they will have the right to cross
and get on to their property.
A. Dulgarian: Do you understand what he’s saying?
K. Petrakis: Not entirely, no. The common driveway should probably
be a proposed property line in which case it would just worsen
the other person’s situation.
G. Lake: Has Dan Patenaude seen this from the Department of
Public Works?
D. McGoey: He hasn’t given me his comments.
K. Petrakis: Like I say, I want to do what’s the best thing
because obviously I’m going to have to live here. When
we looked at splitting it up other ways, there’s not too
many ways to split this piece up unless you go with a road in
here and then build four or five homes.
D. McGoey: Set up another work session and bring your surveyor
in and we will see what can be done.
G. Lake: It probably is best that you have one more work session.
K. Petrakis: I spoke to her today on the site distance and as
Mr. McGoey said, there’s not too much you can do about
it because the rise in the roadway itself. It’s not like
we can clear shrubbery or anything like that.
D. McGoey: I am saying move the driveway may help.
G. Lake: At the work session, he looks at the engineering. I
don’t think the Board has any other problems with this.
TABLED. Applicant to schedule another work session.
5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 P.M. - SOUTAR - TWO FAMILY -
SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Goshen Turnpike (101-1-33) #024-002
G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 8:28 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 3rd day of July, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. or
as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the
application of Dean Soutar, 75 Susan Lane, Circleville, New
York for approval of site plan and special use permit for a
two-family home located on the east side of Goshen Turnpike
and Scotchtown Place, Tax Map Parcel Section 101, Block 1, Lot
22, under Section 82-37 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
T. DePuy: I am with DePuy Engineering. This was part of an
original three lot subdivision that we were granted in 1998
and at that time we were also granted Special Use Permits on
all three lots. Since that time the Special Use Permit had
expired on all three. We’re basically only looking to
get the Special Use Permit re-enacted on what was called lot
#3. We are proposing a two-family house. It is right across
from Scotchtown Place. The driveway will access on to Goshen
Turnpike and we will obtain our sewer and water from the street.
At the time of the subdivision the driveway that had encroached
from the adjacent property of which we had granted an easement.
That’s still intact. That was filed when we filed the
original map. We meet all the setback requirements, area requirements.
It has also been reviewed by Orange County Department of Public
Works. They have two or three comments and we have resubmitted
it to them.
G. Lake: I will go to the Board.
A. Dulgarian: As long as Dick is happy I don’t have any
problems with the Site Plan. Two-family is not going to change
the characteristic. It’s in conformity with what’s
there.
P. Owen: Nothing.
R. Carr: I agree with Mr. Dulgarian.
G. Luenzmann: No comments.
MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 8:32 P.M. made by A.
Dulgarian and seconded by R. Carr.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
Motion carried. 5 AYES
MOTION for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by A. Dulgarian and seconded
by P. Owen.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
Motion carried. 5 AYES
MOTION for SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT for TWO-FAMILY made
by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
Motion carried. 5 AYES
