G. Barone: You have to go through the motions. If your property doesn’t touch a residential zone and it’s all surrounded by industrial land. . .

B. Faro: It’s all residential.

N. Zeffiro: My Uncle lives there.

G. Barone: They may all live there but they’ve been living on commercial land.

B. Faro: But when my parents bought the property thirty eight years ago it was residential/agriculture.

G. Barone: Then it go re-zoned.

N. Zeffiro: Then somewhere along the line somebody came up before the Board and had it changed to industrial. There are all homes there.

G. Lake: Probably in the mid-1970's there was a Master Plan that was re-done.

B. Faro: I think I have the original.

G. Lake: What we can do for you tonight is set the Public Informational Hearing and understand that since you may not be touching and it doesn’t look it for RA. I don’t think this Board can recommend to give spot zoning.

B. Faro: But that’s not fair. My mother is eighty two years old and has had the property for thirty eight years.

G. Lake: Once you get to the Town Board.

T. Hamilton: They are the ones who can change it.

G. Lake: We just make the recommendation to them.

B. Faro: But they told us if we came up here in front of you that . . .

A. Dulgarian: Even if we were to say yes this is one hundred percent we would like to see it, it is up to them to say yes or no. We can say no and they may turn around and say yes.

N. Zeffiro: What’s our next step?

G. Lake: Your next step is we’re going to set a Public Informational Hearing for you. Call the office on Monday and you will be told the steps to take.

B. Faro: When you’re saying we’re not touching residential, how is that possible when all the houses around there are residential one-family homes?

G. Lake: Because right now they are in MI and are in a non-conforming zone.

MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL HEARING for October 1, 2003 made by G. Monaco and seconded by T. Hamilton.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

1. THE FAIRWAYS - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Golf Links Road (73-1-31.2, 33.2, 33.3) #120-002

J. Van Tile: I am here on behalf of The Fairways. With me is Phil Evans, Tim Miller, Jack O’Connell and Fred Welsh.

G. Lake: Bring everybody up to speed on where you are.

J. Van Tile: As you know we’ve been before the Board on several occasions and been working in a work shop setting the whole period of a number of months. What we would like to do tonight is bring you up to date with where we are and we’re hopeful that the Board will deem the application at an appropriate stage to set a Public Hearing because we’re anxious at this point to start getting some public comments on the plan. The first thing we would like to do is describe the plan to you again. If you remember the last time we were before you we asked the Board what you wanted us to do with respect to certain housing elements on the plan on the east side of Golf Links Road.

P. Evans: We have been meeting with the Engineer of the Town and with the Planning Board Chairman in work sessions and have been going over a number of issues. If you remember from the last, this is the sketch plan and what I wanted to show you is what we’ve been doing. This plan has the same number of units that we had before. In the sketch plan we said we were going to take these units out of here and decided and moved them around a little bit. We also added three singles down here, a duplex here and moved this unit away from the highway. Other than that, this plan is basically the same plan. As I mentioned on the sketch plan we also put in a storm water management facility down here and we would like to donate this entire piece to the Town. We’ve done some other minor changes. We added an easement here in this area for an emergency exit for properties over here. We have another site over here. We still have a bus stop here but there has been a change and the school might want us to instead of having that they may want to go through the project and we’re working with the school on that now. Other than that the count is the same. Our road design hasn’t changed.

G. Lake: Did we ever talk to Mr. Edward Smith? I think he was interested because of the wells.

P. Evans: The Town wells are all in this area.

J. Van Tile: Maybe if I just mention a couple of other things. In the work shop we also met with Edward Smith about ownership of the utilities. His preliminary reaction was that he would want to have ownership only of the utilities within the right-of-way and that the other within our site would remain privately owned. Of course, we will do what ever the Town wants. We have suggested that we would file an offer of cessation in the event that the Town ever wants to take over ownership. That decision is totally up to the Town. We continue to work with responding to your Engineer’s comments. I’m sure that’s going to continue for some time. There are some new developments relating to traffic and other things. We try and be very pro-active in responding to those. We know that this type of continuing valuation needs to go on but at this point we are very interested in being able to obtain comments and for that reason we would suggest a date for the Public Hearing.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board. I know there’s a lot of pages here gentlemen. I think what Mr. McGoey did was really try and give you all the different things we’ve been talking about at the work sessions. Dick, are there any particular ones you want to talk to the Board about?

D. McGoey: No. I don’t think so.

G. Lake: I know the County comments are fairly new, I think, isn’t it?

D. McGoey: The County’s comments are new.

A. Dulgarian: The intersection of East Main and Golf Links Road as far as the re-alignment. Does that hinge on the distribution center that’s gone for now by them?

D. McGoey: Yes. The hospital will probably have to do it.

A. Dulgarian: Should that happen.

D. McGoey: That was essentially the County’s feelings and their going to request it that this applicant help with the turning lane.

J. Van Tile: And we’re certainly willing to participate on all the discussions. We attended that meeting and obviously we’re going to do our fair share.

A. Dulgarian: As always Dick does a pretty good job on all the technical stuff and I know we’re going to hit on all the traffic and drainage and all that stuff but what I want to know right now is, what’s going to be visible from Route 84, the back yards or are there elevations and I know we talked about noise barriers and screening. I’m just curious if we’re going to see back yards from Route 84? I don’t know if we should see a view from Route 84 or perhaps where the noise barrier is going to be but I’m sure they’re going to have to be (not clear) the noise barriers similar to what we did on Leewood where we showed the elevations and we show what you’re actually going to see from the road. That’s one thing I would like to have addressed. The other thing we talked about the last time you were here was what steps are being taken to be good neighbors to the golf course? Where the golf course abuts this property, screening may be bad, I don’t know but is there going to be screening or is there just going to be lawns and lawns or I’m sure you have talked to them and I’m just curious what it’s going to look like. I doubt there’s going to be a fence going around it. I’m sure the two want to cooperate and you will probably sell homes to members and such but I would like to see what the golf course property would look like abutting to yours.

G. Lake: Do you want to answer some of those questions real quick now?

T. Miller: We provided an addendum which showed some cross sections. There’s a series of cross sections that are shown from I-84. It looks like it shows the east bound lanes of I-84 going across the property and the highway frontage, our property lines and the location of the nearest home. As you can see that within the, off our property, there is still a substantial area in all instances. I don’t believe that you will be able to have a direct line of sight from I-84 into the back yards of the units. There is also a drawing in that which shows the location of the noise barrier. We’re proposing a six hundred fifty foot long noise barrier at the northerly end of the property. Again that noise barrier will be behind a tree line and we do not believe that you will be able to see that based on the cross sections that we’ve done.

J. Van Tile: The golf course has been one of our chief concerns right from the beginning. As a matter of fact, the question is very well taken because we’re in the process right now of generating a drawing for them superimposing the existing wooded area on the golf course with our limits of disturbance on our property. So we expect at the Public Hearing we’re going to present an actual drawing to show prospective as well as planned drawings showing just how the two properties do interface. Obviously we think one of the lovely things about our property is the way the homes are going to have use of the golf course and the golf course will be enhanced by these buildings next to their property. We are certainly addressing that issue. We are planning to have an area of limited disturbance.

A. Dulgarian: These are all ownership units?

J. Van Tile: Condominiums for sale.

A. Dulgarian: Okay.

J. Van Tile: With a Home Owner’s Association.

A. Dulgarian: There are single family homes also?

J. Van Tile: Yes, the single family homes are condominiums also. In fact, that’s one of the reasons why we need a Special Permit from the Board. The entire project is going to be Condominium ownership. No separate lots which assures that . . .

A. Dulgarian: So, there’s some sort of Home Owner’s . . .

J. Van Tile: Yes. Absolutely.

A. Dulgarian: Now, in the Home Owner’s Agreement the vegetation we see now, I know you are showing trees in the wetland. I haven’t been back there so I don’t know if that’s the case.

P. Evans: They’re there.

A. Dulgarian: This existing tree border is going to remain forever more?

P. Evans: They can’t go out and cut trees.

A. Dulgarian: So, the existing screening is going to remain?

P. Evans: We’re going to add to it. We will be adding pines back there to block the sound barrier wall from our side.

P. Owen: I don’t have anything at this time.

G. Luenzmann: Is this going to be part of the golf course or is it separate?

P. Evans: No. It is completely separate. We’ve been talking to the golf course about getting memberships but it’s a private course. They make up their minds on who the members may or may not be. We’ve dealt with the Architect. We’re working with the groundskeeper and I’m trying to get a meeting with the Board before the Public meeting.

G. Luenzmann: Now, on this parcel in the back by I-84, it looks like to have units and a series of buildings and individual homes. Dick, is there any parking back there. I don’t see it. It’s hard to look at this plan.

P. Evans: There’s parking in the garages and parking in front of the garages and there’s also additional parking, off-street parking.

G. Luenzmann: I see that for the buildings that are attached.

G. Lake: Mr. Luenzmann, as far as the parking goes we will double check that and make sure that they have extra.

G. Luenzmann: How wide is that road back there?

P. Evans: Twenty four feet.

J. O’Connell: All the duplexes, all are two-car garages with two cars parking in front of the garage.

G. Luenzmann: Is there parking on the street?

J. O’Connell: No. Each home can park four cars.

G. Luenzmann: Has the fire department made any comments on the cul-de-sac?

J. O’Connell: We went to the fire department and gave them a copy of the plans. Mr. McClintock agreed with everything and sent a letter to the Board.

P. Evans: Yes. We checked the radius of his largest truck and we made sure his largest truck could turn everywhere he had to.

G. Monaco: I have nothing at this time.

T. Hamilton: One of Dick’s comments is are there any variances needed?

J. Van Tile: Yes.

G. Lake: I think she is going to comment on that in a minute. Do you have a copy of all the variances that you will need for each member of the Board?

J. Van Tile: Yes.

G. Lake: I assume you have started that process?

J. Van Tile: Yes.

G. Lake: I believe you talked about it in the work session.

J. Van Tile: We have started the process. We have, after discussing these variances in a work shop setting, we have actually filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals and are scheduled for discussion at their upcoming meeting on August 11th but we had told them that we expected a formal referral from your Board. Carol Kelly had suggested that we do it that way and obviously the former decision on the variances is totally up to the Board. As Dick suggested from the memo that he submitted for tonight’s meeting he asked the applicant to summarize what they were. I’m happy to just go through them briefly. Would that be helpful?

G. Lake: Just highlight them.

J. Van Tile: There are a number of variances but most of them are very minor. With respect to the single family units, we basically have an interpretation issue because your code states that in cluster groupings of homes there’s a limit that you can only have ten homes in a grouping and no more . . . We submit that our Site Plan is really not where there is one where there are clustered units. We don’t have little cul-de-sacs that you may expect. Instead we have something very different by planting islands, etc. We’re actually suggesting that an interpretation should be made by the Zoning Board that these sections of the code that talk about groups of cluster dwelling really don’t apply in that situation. Of course, if that interpretation isn’t granted we’re asking for an interpretation of the Board that we meet the length requirements. Second, we have some setback requirements for decks. Obviously we tried to stay as far as from I-84 as we can. These units here just because of the topography are what we call down hill units. In other words they have a basement in the back. We would have to be providing a deck rather than a patio at the second level. Some of those decks, virtually all of the decks here will be encroaching into the rear yard setback. We are concerned about that issue. That’s another series of variances that needs to be referred. Setbacks, encroachment of decks into the rear yard and we have one down hill unit right here that will require a similar variance for a deck. Then we have some height variances in the single family units. I think in the work shop setting we showed you Mr. Chairman some of the elevations of the building and at the Public Hearing we’re going to have colored drawings to show the elevations of the buildings but I think we can note about them is that they have nice high sharply sloped peaked roofs and, of course, that sometimes results in exceeding height limitations. So, we have twelve units of single family houses where we’re asking that the houses be allowed to be six feet taller than the required thirty five feet. Then we have two types of variances on our attached housing. There is a requirement that says that (not clear) shall at least be separated by at least the distance of twice the height of the tallest building. We’re requesting a variance of fifteen feet but ninety four feet would be required and we have seventy eight feet. As Mr. O’Connell mentioned, we’ve reviewed these variances with the fire department and they don’t have any problem with those. Then we have two other locations where we need a lesser separation variance of fifteen feet. Similar to the single family homes we need some height variances on the larger buildings. A four foot variance of height on some down hill duplexes in the town houses. A twelve foot variance of height on sixteen uphill units and again that’s partially because of the quirk in your code. Your code requires a height be measured at the front property line. For an uphill unit that requires the height be measured on the tallest side. Those variances are a little higher and then we have our two central buildings right around the pool where we’re requesting a ten foot variance and half a story variance with respect to those. Our last variance has to do with the noise wall that you were asking about before. Your code requires that it be six feet tall. Obviously our noise barrier is going to be taller than that. We expect that it’s going to be varied between ten feet and fourteen feet tall and sound barriers are more effective the closer they get to the source of the noise. Obviously it makes sense that we want to have it as close to the property line as possible. That summarizes all of the variances but we would ask you to refer those questions to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

G. Lake: So, your first meeting with the Zoning Board is August 11th and then they will set a Public Hearing for you in September.

J. Van Tile: That’s up to them.

G. Lake: Mr. Barone, we probably should have our Public Hearing after they receive their variances?

G. Barone: Yes.

G. Lake: They should be through with the Zoning Board of Appeals by October, I should think.

J. Van Tile: We believe that it’s probable that if we’re here for discussion in August, we would actually be able to be schedule for our variance hearing at the September 8th meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We would ask the Board to consider if they could, the September 17th meeting would be after the Zoning Board.

G. Barone: The only problem with that is if somebody should file an Article 78 it could delay.

J. Van Tile: But whether or not the Zoning Board decision is and whether it’s challenged or not you

Page 5