Planning
Board Minutes from 8-7-0-02 continued
A.
Fusco: That's what I just said is that the owners did purchase
that property at a County tax sale and they do have the deed but
. . .
G.
Lake: So the other property line coming down along here is their
property line as it is today?
A.
Fusco: That's correct.
G.
Lake: Do they have ownership of this yet?
A.
Fusco: No. They do have ownership of the right-of-way which, if
I may, there is the area in question here. They did purchase it
at a County tax sale.
R.
Carr: Was it a public road?
A.
Fusco: It is utilized by our clients only and they have a deed
to it.
G.
Lake: Which they would continue to have?
A.
Fusco: That's absolutely correct.
G.
Lake: Do you have Dick's comments? Have you had a work session
on this yet?
A.
Fusco: Yes we have. We've had a couple. Has these changed much?
I think I was in one of those sessions. I kind of thought we asked
for a little bit more frontage on some of these lots.
D.
McGoey: We did Gary.
A.
Fusco: You did request some additional frontage. One of the things
that we had wanted was to see if there's any possibility that
we could maintain that we meet or exceed all of the minimum requirements.
If you require it we could try to get some on a couple of other
lots. We would lose one of the lots making it an eleven lot subdivision.
If you require that we would proceed on that data.
A.
Dulgarian: I thought that's something we were looking at.
G.
Lake: Yes. I thought also. We really have been looking for larger
frontage. Nobody builds small houses anymore. Everybody builds
gigantic things. I mean, you're aware of that. That's just the
way it is. We've been asking, not that we get it all time but
I mean we have been asking to try to get away from.
A.
Dulgarian: Gary, you say we've been asking, we've been requiring
it.
G.
Lake: Right.
A.
Fusco: What I think I can do is I can try to blow these out a
little wider and try to move some of the lot lines around. I can't
get it on all of the lots particularly since there are some curves.
If I can, I will come back to you and blow these out
G.
Lake: The other thing, your road going in. I notice you have a
cul-de-sac. Have you talked to our Highway Superintendent on that?
I think he would rather see a "T".
A.
Fusco: We would be happy to.
D.
McGoey: Dan also has a problem with the sharp curve in the road.
You better meet with him. I don't think he's going to accept this
turn here.
A.
Fusco: Okay.
D.
McGoey: So, that's going to change your subdivision layout significantly.
G.
Lake: I think there are a couple of big issues right now with
this. I think you need to talk to Mr. Patenaude.
A.
Fusco: I have no problem.
G.
Lake: The Planning Board has asked for two hundred foot frontage
right a long. I think as a good neighbor maybe you could re-think
the entrance a little bit.
G.
Barone: I will need to see the deed.
D.
McGoey: I've also asked that he shows the improvements on those
lots so we know how they're impacted with this new road because
I have a feeling that if there's structural improvements on those
lots they could be seriously impacted by the construction of that
road where you show it now.
A. Fusco: Okay.
G.
Lake: What's out there, all top soil or shale?
A.
Fusco: There is, in the interior it is mostly shale and around
the exterior perimeter there is top soil.
G.
Lake: Okay.
A.
Fusco: One of the things I can ask, do you prefer with this for
me to move the road over? I have no problem with doing it. Is
that something you might like to see?
G.
Lake: I think we would. Do you waive any time frame?
A.
Fusco: We would waive the time frame.
Application
Tabled with applicant waiving the time frame.
1. BAUM - 9 LOT SUBDIVISION - VanAmburgh Road (31-1-17) #018-001
J.
Dillin: The subdivision is a nine lot subdivision on VanAmburgh
Road. It's located in the RA zone. The total acreage of the site
is nineteen acres and we are proposing nine lots. We've done the
soil formulas. We've had the Public Hearing. There's been a couple
questions the largest to come up is the adjacent farm that's next
to us. We held a special meeting with Dick McGoey, myself, and
a lady from Cornell and they proposed certain buffers. We show
a buffer on this plan which we believe is an adequate buffer to
the existing vegetation that's along this line. On page three
of five, it shows a double row of evergreen trees. One set of
evergreen trees are on top of a three foot high berm. We would
like to show the Board now of the existing vegetation. We just
took some pictures. Just to explain the tree line that's along
there. It's an old vegetated line. The bottom of the tree line
is about twenty feet thick from the property line over, vegetated
with heavy brush. We are proposing a fifty foot wide easement,
twenty feet of it is now densely vegetated. Ninety five percent
of the tree line as you can see by those pictures, you can't even
walk through. It's hard to even get through. Mr. Smith has proposed
a fifty foot wide easement himself where he is going to plant
grass, leave it natural and put his roadway now on the other side
of the lot. If he does that I believe that his side of the stone
wall is even going to add more to it.
D. McGoey: Just to get to the bottom of the issue. When we met
with Cornell they wanted a six foot high berm. The applicant is
proposing a three foot high berm. Practically speaking, I think
a three foot high berm with all the planting they are proposing
there is adequate. I just wanted the Board to know that.
R.
Carr: At one point they were talking about an eight to ten foot
berm.
D.
McGoey: At the work session meeting I believe it was six feet.
J.
Dillin: It was a six foot berm and some of their suggestions would
be obviously impossible to do. They wanted a five on one slope.
We couldn't really fit it in.
D.
McGoey: Right.
J.
Sherwin: There's only four lots that border this area.
G.
Lake: Did you meet out there?
J.
Dillin: I met with Kevin Sumners.
G.
Lake: Is this what he wanted, this closeness?
J.
Dillin: Yes. The eight foot spacing, the tree types. I think the
only thing they really were talking about here is the berm and
the vegetation line.
J.
Sherman: The berm wasn't really necessary with the vegetation
line. It is about twenty to twenty five feet thick and heavily
vegetated. You could barely see to the farm in any part of that
property. You could see some corn growing if you looked very carefully
through the trees.
G.
Lake: This is now your proposal?
J.
Dillin: Right.
G.
Lake: This is what you worked out to satisfy this farm.
J.
Dillin: Yes. If there were no trees there or no line and just
a fence, then maybe we would've need more. Since we have what
we have.
G. Lake: I think you've done wonderful. We're dealing it for the
first time around I think in the Town of Wallkill. We've learned
a lot from this applicant and Mr. Smith was nice enough to give
us fifty feet.
A.
Dulgarian: So we ended up with one hundred?
G.
Lake: Yes. I think we ended up with a pretty decent buffer between
the two uses, the people living and the farm. Mr. Smith was in
on our last meeting where we talked about this berm and he offered
that.
R.
Carr: Was he also in at the Cornell meeting?
D.
McGoey: Yes. He had some drainage problems. The applicant resolved
those drainage problems.
R.
Carr: I think that's pretty honorable for him to do that.
G.
Lake: I think he realizes that and in return we got a berm, we
got evergreen trees to be put in.
D.
McGoey: Do you have any problems with the other issues?
J.
Dillin: I have no problems. We talked about one in a telephone
conversation and the rest are fine. We can take care of those.
G.
Lake: I will go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: No. I think everybody worked pretty hard to get it
to this point. I think it is a pretty nice deal.
P.
Owen: Nothing to add.
R.
Carr: Nothing to add.
G.
Luenzmann: The only thing is Dick, the berm is going to be three
feet and not six feet. Why would they want such a high berm? It
would be like a fortress.
G.
Monaco: Nothing to add.
G. Lake: That's one thing that got discussed and that's why they
went out there.
G.
Luenzmann: I'm just thinking about all the times we build residential
developments out in an Agricultural District, you couldn't build
a six foot berm. I think there's been a lot of mitigation to this
plan here. I have no problem with it.
G.
Lake: I really commend you for putting up with us learning this
process a little bit.
Motion
for a Negative Declaration made by P. Owen and seconded by G.
Luenzmann.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion
carried. 6 AYES
Motion
for Preliminary Approval made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by
P. Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion carried. 6 AYES
2.
TOWNSEND - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION - VanBurenville/Keasel Roads (36-1-1)
#015-002
D.
Yanosh: I am the surveyor for the project. We were here in May
for a Preliminary Approval on the three lot subdivision. We've
been to Eustance & Horowitz and received their approval for
the septic designs. Now we are back for final approval since it's
a major subdivision.
G.
Lake: Do you have Dick's comments?
D.
Yanosh: Yes.
G.
Lake: About the Agricultural District?
D.
Yanosh: I was down here at the Town Hall today. The only spot
where we hit the Agricultural District is on the corner right
here on VanBurenville and Bowser. I talked to the Assessor and
the corner lot has a house on there. There is a determination
that once a house is put on a piece of property and it's in the
Agricultural District, it's no longer Agricultural Exempt. It's
going to take the County about a couple years before the maps
are revised.
G.
Lake: I thought it was only for operating farms.
G.
Barone: It's only for an operating farm any way.
G.
Lake: Do you want a letter in the file?
G.
Barone: We should.
D.
Yanosh: Just a letter.
G.
Lake: Stating that you investigated it and that it isn't a working
farm.
D.
Yanosh: And the little trailer, the camper trailer that's up here
on the Valano lot, I was out there tonight before I came here.
There's a pipe that comes out for a septic but nothing connected.
He must stop there on weekends.
D.
McGoey: No septic at all?
D.
Yanosh: Nothing at all.
G.
Lake: Eustance & Horowitz?
D.
Yanosh: We do have that.
Motion
for 3 Lot Subdivision approval made by A. Dulgarian and seconded
by G. Luenzmann.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion
carried. 6 AYES
3. WAL-MART DISTRIBUTION CENTER - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT
- Route 17/Route 17K (1-1-1.2, 2.222, 43, 44, 66, 67.1) #067-002
G.
Conner: I'm an Engineer with H & M Design from Jackson, Tennessee
here representing our client known as Wal-Mart. We're here this
evening to initiate the SEQRA process seeking the Board's announcement
as the Lead Agency in the SEQRA process. We're looking at putting
in the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 17 and Route
17K a footprint of approximately one point one million square
feet distribution facility along with the pavements for automobiles,
trailers, tractors. We will have two entrance roads, one for the
truck traffic and one for employee traffic. It sits on a site
of about three hundred fifteen acres. We're seeking to start construction
here in a couple of years.
A.
Dulgarian: I don't have anything.
P.
Owen: I don't have anything.
R.
Carr: Not right now.
G.
Monaco: Not right now.
G.
Luenzmann: Not right now.
G.
Lake: I will make a SEQRA motion for our intent to be Lead Agency.
Motion
made for the Intent of the Planning Board to become Lead Agency
made by R. Carr and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion
carried. 6 AYES
Planning
Board Minutes
Page
1 II Page 2 II Page
3 II Page 4 II Page
5
