TOWN
OF WALLKILL PLANNING BOARD
MEETING
AUGUST
6, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann,
G. Monaco
P. Owen
MEMBERS
ABSENT: R. Carr
OTHERS
PRESENT: G. Barone, J. McKay, D. McGoey
1. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. - KABRO ASSOCIATES - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL
USE PERMIT - Cottage Street Extension (40-1-50.1) #013-002
G.
Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:36 P.M. M. Hunt read the Public
Hearing notice.
M.
Hunt: 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
6th day of August, 2003 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as
the matter can be heard that day on the application of Kabro of
Middletown, LLC for approval of a senior citizen residential development
located on the south side of Cottage Street Extension, near its
intersection with Mud Mills Road, under Section 249-38 and 249-40
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
L.
Wolinsky: I am here on behalf of the applicant. With me is Lorraine
Potter, Engineer for the project. Mr. Chairman, as you have a
lengthy agenda tonight, I am going to turn it right over to Mrs.
Potter who will do a brief presentation and let you get right
to the public.
G.
Lake: Just bring the Board and everybody up to date with the work
sessions with Mr. McGoey.
L.
Potter: We’ve been before the Board for approximately nine
months now. We’ve been working with them on work sessions
on the development of this project. The project is on one hundred
and twenty one acres on Cottage Street Extension. We are proposing
an age restricted adult community. It’s a gated community.
It has two hundred eighty three units. These are single family
detached units. They are served by public water, public sewer.
We also are in an R-1 district. This is actually a ratable for
the Town as the taxes will go toward
the schools and there is no impact on the school. We meet all
of the density requirements and the parking, we are providing
additional parking. We are also providing a recreation building,
75,000 square feet. There is an indoor pool, outdoor pool, tennis,
putting green and some other amenities. All of the drainage ponds
that you see on there in blue, they will all have fountains so
the water will not be stagnated.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board before I go to the Public.
A.
Dulgarian: Not at this time.
P.
Owen: I will wait until after the Public.
G.
Luenzmann: I will wait until after the Public.
G.
Monaco: I will do the same.
T.
Hamilton: The same.
G.
Lake: I will now open this up to the Public.
J.
Masi: I am with the City of Middletown. “Dear Members of
the Planning Board: Please accept this letter as the City of Middletown’s
comments upon application for residential development on Tax Map
parcel 40-1-50.1, submitted by Strathmore. The application indicated
two hundred ninety five condominium units, consisting of two-bedroom
detached dwellings, will be constructed on the Cottage Street
Extension adjacent to Mud Mills Road. The City has long opposed
large scale residential development in this neighborhood for the
following reasons:
First,
there will be a substantial negative traffic impact on City roads,
particularly at the intersection of Wisner Avenue and Cottage
Street. This negative impact will cause the City to seriously
consider closing Cottage Street and the entrances to Vincent Drive
from Cottage street or, alternatively, to make Cottage Street
a one-way street. The City requests that the applicant be required
to submit a detailed traffic study showing the impact now only
on Town traffic, but the City traffic as well, particularly at
the Wisner-Cottage intersection. The City further requests that
the Public Hearing be kept open to allow for comment on the traffic
study.
Second, there will be a substantial drainage impact from any residential
development on the lower elevation areas of the Cottage Street
neighborhood. The City requests that the applicant be required
to submit a detailed drainage plan showing the impact not only
on Town neighborhoods, but City neighborhoods as well. The City
further requests that the Public Hearing be kept open to allow
for comment on the drainage plan.
Third,
it is not clear from the application what “age restricted”
means. But, if there is to be nearly three hundred two-bedroom
units, there is likely to be a significant impact upon the Middletown
School District. This impact should be considered by not only
the Planning Board but the School District as well, and the Public
Hearing should be kept open to allow input from the School District.
These
substantial adverse impacts should result in the Planning Board
requiring the applicant to submit a full Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), and to hold a Public Hearing on such Statement.
Thank you for your consideration.”
G.
Lake: Anybody else? Is there anyone else who would like to speak
on this application? If not, we will close the Public Hearing
at 7:43P.M.
A.
Dulgarian: It’s very rare that we get any of our neighbors
to participate with us. I like that. But, what do we have to lose
if we keep this Public Hearing open to see the impacts on the
traffic study and then gaining more input after we see more. The
only reason I’m saying this is because of the size of this
project and the overall impacts it’s going to have on both
communities, I was just wondering if any of the other Board members
felt that way. It is a sizable application and I’m kind
of leaning towards if there is more information out there.
D.
McGoey: Let me say something. There is a traffic study has been
completed. A drainage study has been completed. There is a full
Environmental documentation on the project. I agree, that should
be made available to the City. It’s been on file here at
the Town Hall. If they would like a copy of it, I’m sure
we could provide them with a copy.
G.
Lake: Surely that has been here and we will provide that to them.
It’s up to the whole Board if they want to keep it open
or not.
A.
Dulgarian: That’s just my opinion on it.
P.
Owen: As far as keeping it open, I don’t see the harm in
it. I think there is still a lot of work to be done on the project
even though a lot of it has been completed. I don’t see
the harm in keeping it open.
G. Luenzmann: I’m just wondering what the purpose of leaving
it open when all the documentation has been provided and all the
answers to these questions are going to be . . I will ask the
experts, is there any purpose of leaving it open? I don’t
have any problems with it.
G.
Monaco: I think the more opinions we have, the better.
T.
Hamilton: I think we’ve been working on this a long time.
We’ve been gathering information for years on this it seems.
I believe we have enough to work with.
G.
Lake: My only comment on it is that, along with Mr. Hamilton is
this isn’t a new project. It’s been here nine to ten
months. We have done all the traffic studies and are more than
willing to share them with anybody. It’s an open book. I’m
not sure if they have time to comment yet, and this is just to
keep the process going. Yes, we have work. We have comments that
we have to work on yet and finish the process. We do have a ways
to go. The only thing this does is slow it down. It’s up
to the Board. I make a motion to close the Public Hearing, get
a second and then we will vote yes or no.
A.
Dulgarian: Can you explain to me exactly how it would slow the
process down?
G.
Lake: I think what happened in the past when we kept Public Hearing
opened, and it’s only my opinion, is that true there might
be something new that may come in, it’s still coming to
us. They still have the right to look at all the documents.
D.
McGoey: If you’re going to consider closing it, you should
ask the applicant to waive the sixty two day time frame?
L.
Wolinsky: We would have no objection to closing the Public Hearing
and maybe extending the comment period that you offered for an
additional period of time. Of course, I think your Attorney will
advise you that if something very significantly and new shows
up you have a right to re-open the hearing any way. We’re
more than willing to meet with anybody who has a concern and work
that out and deal with any written comments. If people need more
time to review the documentation just give them more time to make
their comments to the Board. We have a lot of technical stuff
we have to finish before this gets acted on any way so, we will
deal with it in that period.
G.
Lake: I agree with Mr. Dulgarian that these are our neighbors
and we want to have a good working relationship with them.
A. Dulgarian: I still feel the same way.
D.
McGoey: Have him waive the time frame.
L.
Wolinsky: I don’t need to waive it if you’re going
to keep it open.
G.
Lake: We don’t know that yet.
L.
Wolinsky: I will waive it if you don’t keep it open, obviously.
G.
Lake: The comment period, you are asking us to extend it for thirty
days?
L.
Wolinsky: Absolutely.
MOTION
to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 7:50 P.M. made by G. Lake and
seconded by A. Dulgarian.
A.
Dulgarian: Nay
P.
Owen: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Monaco: Nay
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 4 AYES, 2 NAYS
G.
Lake: We will extend your comment period to thirty days so they
can comment.
D.
McGoey: Do you waive the time frame?
L.
Wolinsky: Yes.
G. Lake: Does everybody understand what happens here? Do you understand
that you still have written comments for thirty days?
L.
Wolinsky: I will be sending them the document.
G.
Lake: He will send you everything to this point.
D.
McGoey: We have thirty days to receive your written comments back.
G.
Lake: Your questions will be answered. Dick’s comments?
Dick, do you think we need to go through all twenty?
D.
McGoey: No.
L.
Wolinsky: It’s a lengthy list of comments. We would prefer
to just let you go and we’ll arrange a work session and
start working with Mr. McGoey and you can pick off the items.
G. Lake: I will go back through the Board. Dick, do you think
you could maybe test the Boards memory about the traffic a little
bit?
D.
McGoey: There were two traffic studies. One was specific to the
project site and identified all of the various intersections around
the site that could be impacted by the project including Cottage
Street Extension. We, then as a Board, combined other major projects
that are in the vicinity and feeds the major routes in the vicinity
of this project. We had to do a generic environmental impact on
the traffic of the whole area. That was done for ten projects.
The project sponsors of each of those projects met with Mr. Lake
and myself on two occasions. There was a list of traffic mitigation
listed in the study that has to be performed to make the traffic
flow better at the various intersections. We have a general consensus
from each of the applicants to do a piece of that mitigation and
also to share some of the costs at Tower Drive and North Galleria
Drive and Route 211. It seems to have gotten to the point where
it looks like mitigation will be forthcoming.
A.
Dulgarian: If mitigation is required at the intersection of Cottage
and Wisner, how do we go into another Town and perform widening,
lighting, striping in another Town?
D.
McGoey: It would be by permission of the City of Middletown.
A. Dulgarian: What happens if the project hinges on a mitigation
and we’re not allowed by the City?
G.
Barone: If it is a mitigation item, we would need their cooperation.
A.
Dulgarian: Can you explain the “age restricted” again?
L.
Potter: It is for fifty five years of age and older.
A.
Dulgarian: And that’s legal? I know there has been some
laws passed.
L.
Wolinsky: There’s Federal laws and State laws. These laws
are enacted to permit anti-discrimination. The age restricted
developments are exceptional within those laws. It’s a permitted
discrimination to allow an adult community. The laws are structured
to require residents to be fifty five years and over.
A.
Dulgarian: What about other occupants in the household?
L.
Wolinsky: Other occupants of the household can be less, one person
at least has to be fifty five. Nobody can be under eighteen years
of age.
A.
Dulgarian: I guess my question is I’m looking at the impact
it would have on schools and that type of thing.
L.
Wolinsky: No school children.
A.
Dulgarian: And, that is legit?
L.
Wolinsky: Yes. As a condition of your approval you will have your
Attorney review enforceable covenants and restrictions that guarantee
that.
P.
Owen: Nothing.
G.
Luenzmann: The only concern that I have, a major concern, is the
traffic issue. I would be paying very close attention to the mitigation
on it.
G.
Monaco: I have the same concerns on the traffic issue.
T. Hamilton: We will be hashing this over with the traffic problem,
what’s going to happen and whose going to do it and where
it is.
G.
Lake: Mr. Wolinsky, this school age thing. Is it in the deed restriction
or the Home Owner’s Association that just does not allow.
L.
Wolinsky: It’s in all of those. The Home Owner’s Association
by-laws, the Declaration of Condominium and as far as that declaration
which is in effect a covenant and restrictions that run against
the land. They contain those provisions.
G.
Lake: I think what’s happening here a little bit is the
last project we had was going to have a lot of kids and obviously
that makes a big difference.
L.
Wolinsky: Of course.
G.
Lake: In traffic, kind of traffic, peak hours, off hours right
down to school busses. Basically there is a way that no kids will
be there?
L.
Wolinsky: We’ve done it in this Town already. We did it
over at Silver Lake with that project.
G.
Lake: Why don’t you give us a little something in writing
between now and the next time you’re here?
L.
Wolinsky: I will do my best to explain it in layman’s terms.
T.
Hamilton: Is there any special taxing or reductions on this project?
L.
Wolinsky: No. This is a market rate project. We’re not seeking
any subsidies, no tax credits, no tax exemptions, fully taxable.
G.
Lake: I guess you are already scheduled with a work session with
Mr. McGoey, so we’re going to table this for further action.
We did agree to the thirty day written comment period and you
supply the City of Middletown with all the information they need.
Tabled
for further review.
2. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - PLAZA AT CRYSTAL RUN - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL
USE PERMIT - North Galleria Drive (78-2-5.21) #024-003
G.
Lake: Public Hearing started at 8:01 P.M. M. Hunt read the Public
Hearing notice.
M.
Hunt: 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
6th day of August, 2003 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as
the matter can be heard that day on the application of Topper
Associates LLC/Middletown Properties LLC for the approval of site
plan approval of eating and drinking establishment in a retail
store at Plaza at Crystal Run at North Galleria Drive 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
G.
Lake: Bring the Board up to date where we’re at on the plan.
J.
Braverman: At the last meeting which was June 18th we had prepared
a set of drawings that was a little bit different than this rendering
that I have up here for the Site Plan. The two buildings were
connected basically with a small aisle way and then in further
negotiations with the tentative tenant within the restaurant which
is the lower building shown. There are some desires to be separated
and have this configuration for the site. Mr. McGoey has reviewed
the drawings that reflected these changes. He had given me a list
of issues and I believe I have addressed those issues. I think
there is one particular issue outstanding as far as the dumpster
enclosure. The exterior structure of the tentative tenant for
the restaurant is a wood frame structure with siding. The intent
is that the enclosure and the gated entry for the enclosure for
the dumpster would be the same exterior finish with a chain link
fence. That is something that certainly could be addressed with
the Building Permit and submitted or subject to Dick’s approval
on his final approval. I don’t believe there are any other
outstanding issues.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: After the public.
Page 2
