would
still have the observation of going ahead with the Public Hearing.
You are the Lead Agency. We want to get public comments and I
think the sooner we get the public comments the better. It would
be very helpful for us in our planning to start getting public
input.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board one more time to see if they
have any more questions. Do we deny this?
G. Barone: Make a motion to refer it to the Zoning Board of Appeals
to address the variances set forth.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board one more time.
A.
Dulgarian: The bottom row of houses where you’re going to
encroach the back yards.
J.
Van Tile: We’re going to have to.
G.
Lake: That’s only for the decks, right?
J.
Van Tile: Yes. Absolutely.
A.
Dulgarian: Who is putting up the decks?
J.
Van Tile: We are.
A.
Dulgarian: There’s no additional, in other words what you
put up is what is put up. The property owner doesn’t.
J.
Van Tile: They have no right to enclose anything.
A.
Dulgarian: There is no fencing or anything.
J.
Van Tile: Absolutely not. Again, the only reason we need to request
the variance is that these are down hill units. Your code exempts
patios, terraces from the yard requirement so if these were uphill
we wouldn’t have to do that.
P.
Owen: I have no questions at this time.
G.
Luenzmann: I have nothing.
G.
Monaco: Can you explain the parking calculations.
T.
Miller: Statistics would demonstrate enough parking space generation.
Three per unit whether it is a single family home or a town house.
It is a very generous parking allocation.
I don’t have the parking generation information here but
typically the standard requirement for a single family home is
two spaces. We figure that three spaces would be more than adequate.
I kind of have to go sometimes with national demographics and
number of people generated on a per family basis. We would expect
school age children, the number of school age children for a single
family house would be somewhere around .8 for a single family
house on the average.
G.
Monaco: So, a four-bedroom house would be . . .
T.
Miller: A single family house typically would be about three or
four bedrooms. Even if we bumped up that number to an average
of 1.2 it would be very generous. We think that we would still
be more than adequate to accommodate. It’s true that people
do have two or more cars in a household. I won’t say that
there won’t be an exception where you would have four. If
that occurs people are going to have to deal with it. We do have
some parking spaces throughout the property.
T.
Hamilton: Extra spaces?
T.
Miller: So, that type of overflow could be accommodated at other
locations on the site.
T.
Hamilton: How far away from the units though?
T.
Miller: It doesn’t matter how far away they are. If they
only have three spaces they would have to park at some place and
deal with their car.
T.
Hamilton: We have complexes here that allow two spaces and what
happens is they won’t go to another lot. They want to park
near their homes.
T.
Miller: We have twenty four foot wide streets and the by-laws
of our Home Owner’s Association will prohibit parking in
the street. Those by-laws will be for the benefit of every homeowner
there who will basically acting as policemen in those type of
circumstances. We think the accommodation of three spaces for
each unit is quite generous plus parking spaces at other locations.
J.
O’Connell: Out of our fifty two homes only twelve of them
are proposed to have four bedroom single family homes. Every single
family home has a two-car garage and room for two cars in the
driveway. Some of this can actually fit six cars in the driveway.
Some have long driveways, not all.
G.
Monaco: The four-bedroom duplexes are going to have four parking
spaces for each duplex?
J. O’Connell: The duplexes have only three bedrooms. The
single family are mostly three bedrooms except about twelve of
them are four-bedroom. Every single family and every duplex has
a two-car garage with a minimum of two parking spaces in the driveway.
G.
Lake: Let’s send it to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their
approval?
G.
Barone: Send it to them also for an interpretation.
T.
Hamilton: Mr. Barone, didn’t we always have to do a vote
to turn the application down and then send them to the Zoning
Board of Appeals?
G.
Barone: You’re not going to be denying or grant them anything.
Your just going to refer them to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
It is no different than when the Town Board refers some zone changes
to you.
MOTION
to refer this applicant to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS made by
G. Lake and seconded by G. Monaco.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
MOTION
to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for October 15, 2003 made by A. Dulgarian
and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
T. Hamilton: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
1. GORSKY - 7 LOT SUBDIVISION - Scotchtown/Collabar Road/Brook
Road (20-1-30.23) #079-002
T.
Ptak: I’m the Engineer for the project. This is Nick Gorsky
who is the owner and the applicant of the project. What we’re
here for tonight is to ask the Board for Sketch Plan approval
of the drawings that you have in front of you. We’ve been
to a couple of work shops and we were before the Board previously.
We had proposed an eight lot subdivision and we’ve reduced
it to six. The entire property is forty six and a half acres and
we’re requesting six lots of that with the exception of
lot #1 that lots are approximately seven acres and above. Lot
#1 and lot #2 both have existing dwellings on those at the present
time. Lot #1, all of the lots have at least two hundred foot frontage.
Dick’s comment #1 says that lot #1 didn’t. I guess
there was a distance left out along the frontage but if you scale
the frontage it’s about two hundred and fifteen and at the
building which again is existing at two hundred and five. There’s
a large section of New York State wetlands which have been delineated
on lots #3 and #6 and we’ve sent that to the Department
of Environmental Conservation and we turned in a signed copy of
the map with the applications. What we’re looking for is
Sketch Plan approval so we can move ahead with the project and
get going.
G.
Lake: I will go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: Can you explain the need for the flag lot? You have
an existing house on lots #1 and #2.
T.
Ptak: Correct.
A.
Dulgarian: And, you’re going to split that and that’s
going to be your flag to get access to the back lot?
T. Ptak: That’s correct. We talked about at the work shop
trying to put an (not clear). We even briefly discussing trying
to put a Town road in there and it is and you look at the topography
quite steep. We’re not going to get more out of it by improving
the road to get anything different.
A.
Dulgarian: The two lots you’re creating, one is six plus
and the other one is wetlands 14?
T.
Ptak: Yes. The other one includes wetlands and is about fourteen.
P.
Owen: It doesn’t look bad.
G.
Luenzmann: It doesn’t look too bad to me. It’s just
the slopes.
G.
Lake: Take a ride out and take a look at it. There’s no
doubt about it.
G.
Luenzmann: I don’t have any problem with the flag lot. My
concern would be the slopes.
G.
Monaco: I have no problem with the flag lot.
T.
Hamilton: Just as long as Dick is satisfied with his comments.
T.
Ptak: We will provide those at our next submission. I just want
to ask Mr. McGoey on the last comment I assume you are referring
to you want at least the house areas on a fifty scale or something
to that effect?
D.
McGoey: Yes.
G.
Lake: You have Dick’s comments?
T.
Ptak: Yes. I think the technical matters are things that we can
take care of.
G.
Lake: The driveways are the people going to be able to get into
them?
T.
Ptak: I think we’re allowed, correct me if I’m wrong,
up to fourteen percent and I think we can do most of them ten
percent or less.
D.
McGoey: Ten percent.
T. Ptak: I feel we can do ten percent.
G.
Lake: I think fourteen percent is pretty excessive.
D.
McGoey: Yes.
G.
Lake: You have the feelings of the Board.
Tabled
for further action.
2. LIBERTY COMMONS - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Goshen Turnpike
(44-1-49.2) #050-003
J.
Fine: I’m substituting for Mr. Fusco this evening. You’ve
seen the project before. It’s thirty five condominium units
between Goshen Turnpike and Foster Road. We have maps for the
members for their review. We received a change in zone from the
Town Board and we’re now in R-1. We have review comments
from your Town Engineer and there are also some current comments.
In the most recent letter Mr. McGoey indicates that it is appropriate
to set the Public Hearing. We’re confident that we can accommodate
the comments that have been made.
T.
Hamilton: Do you have any problems with those comments?
J.
Fine: No. I don’t see any problem.
G.
Lake: How about the setbacks?
D.
McGoey: How are we going to resolve that?
J.
Fine: What we’re proposing is that the road will be a private
road and then the setbacks don’t become a problem.
G.
Lake: So that’s now going to become a private road?
J.
Fine: Yes.
D. McGoey: How would you provide public access to the first two
or three houses in off of Goshen Turnpike?
J.
Fine: My understanding is that they have access from the road.
D.
McGoey: Is that a public street?
J.
Fine: The public road would start here. They have those rights
to enter on to the private road. We’re trying to set it
up as a private road that runs all the way through to guarantee
them access.
G.
Lake: None of this is a Town road?
J.
Fine: This is not a Town road now.
G.
Lake: Isn’t it a Town road up to Dr. Hui’s house?
J.
Fine: Not to my knowledge. It’s a private road.
G.
Lake: The Town doesn’t plow that? Who plows it then?
J.
Fine: They may plow it.
G.
Lake: We’re going to have to find that out. Personally I
think that might be part Town already.
J.
Fine: Let me put it this way Mr. Chairman. We have a list of comments
and it’s my opinion that we have a meeting with Mr. McGoey
on Monday which was previously scheduled. It’s my opinion
that we can resolve the items on that current list in time for
you to set the Public Hearing.
G.
Lake: Obviously one of the items you’re going to have to
solve is whether it is a public or private road. Dick, do you
have any other big items on this list?
D.
McGoey: No, nothing that will stop you from scheduling the Public
Hearing.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: Nothing.
P. Owen: Nothing.
G.
Luenzmann: I have nothing here.
G.
Monaco: Nothing.
T.
Hamilton: Nothing as long as they can resolve Dick’s comments.
MOTION
to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for November 5, 2003 made by T. Hamilton
and seconded by P. Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
3. MASONIC CREEK - 8 LOT SUBDIVISION - Silver Lake Scotchtown
Road (40-1-17.4) #026-003
J. Tirolli: I am the Engineer for the applicant. The applicant
is also represented this evening by Larry Wolinsky, Attorney.
We had looked at this property in a couple of different scenario’s.
First we looked at it for apartments which is permitted and because
of the flood zone and the Federal Wetlands it just did not serve
itself nicely for apartments. We then looked at single family
housing with an interior road that was to be connected to the
development proposed to the north. That also did not pan out primarily
because of some Federal Wetlands intruding on our development
and the development to the north. We scaled back and proposed
eight single family residential lots with group driveways on to
Silver Lake Scotchtown Road. It is twelve hundred five hundred
square feet because the property is within the public sewer and
public water district. There is a public sewer main in the street.
There is not a public water line as we proposed and is shown on
the plan. We expect to extend the water line to the frontage of
this property.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: Is this right next to the other one we looked at?
G.
Lake: Up the road a little bit.
A.
Dulgarian: Not far though, right?
G.
Lake: No.
D.
McGoey: I think it adjoins that.
J.
Tirolli: The next property is Brian Egan’s.
L.
Wolinsky: Scotch Valley.
A.
Dulgarian: Now Scotch Valley comes out with a road here Dick?
D.
McGoey: Yes.
A.
Dulgarian: And not driveways, correct? I guess my first question
is going to be, lot #1, lot #7, lot #8, are you restricted on
how far back you can set the houses because of wetlands or something?
Page 6
