Planning Board Meeting 10-15-03 pg 2 of 4

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 4 AYES

4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 P.M. - FAIRWAYS - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Golf Links Road (73-1-31.2, 33.2, & 33.3) #120-002

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:49 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 15th day of October, 2003 at 7:45 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the application of MGD Development Group, LLC, as contract vendee from Clubside Investors, LLC, owner, for the development of a 62.3 acre property located on Golf Links Road (County Route 50), just south of the Orange County Golf Club, presently designated on the Town of Wallkill Tax Map as Section 73, Block 1, Lots 31.2, 33.2, & 33.3, into a gated condominium project, known as “The Fairways”, containing 217 residential units, with roads privately owned and constructed as shown on the filed plans, and served by municipal water and sewer. The hearing will accept comment on all aspects of the application, including: 1). The application for preliminary and final site plan approval. 2). The application for a special permit for development of detached single family condominium units and attached housing units including duplexes, townhouses, and garden condominium units, pursuant to Zoning Law section 249-22(C)(7)(8), and (12). 3). The request to consolidate the existing three tax parcels into a single parcel. The Planning Board has been designated as Lead Agency for the project review, pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA). All parties
of interest will be heard at said time and place. S/Gary Lake, Chairman

G. Lake: Why don’t you just bring the Board up quickly from the last work session.

J. VanTile: What I would like to do is just highlight what has happened since we’re been here. We’ve been working with the Town since August 2002 and Mr. O’Connell has some drawings to show you about the plan but I just want to highlight the point that the Board has emphasized what we have provided. First, what is it? It’s a very high end creative condominium community. It will have a Home Owners Association. It’s fully condominium so the Town has the assurance that this will be maintained in a long term. It’s a national known builder with a very high reputation and received an award last year from National Builder Magazine rating highest in customer satisfaction. We all know that’s a pretty hard job to accomplish. The plan has a variety of housing types that the Board has sought. In fact, we’re seeking a Special Permit for the variety of housing types single family detached, duplexes, townhouses and garden condominiums. How does the plan fit with the site? The Board has been very concerned about that over the years. This is a plan that preserves open space. We’re proposing to give all of the land on the east side of Golf Links Road to the Town. The development plan minimizes grading and it provides a noise fence along Route 84 which was requested by the Town. Focusing into the community. We’ve established a village setting which is again what the Board asked for. We have a clubhouse in the center. We have sidewalks to assure pedestrian elements. We have interesting street schemes with various setbacks and street features. We have ample guess parking which the Board has reviewed a number of times. As we focus outward a little we provide emergency access to other parcels which the Board asked for. We have a boulevard entrance which the Board members asked for earlier on and after our last meeting we spoke to the school district and arranged to have school busses enter the site which was something that the Board was concerned about. How do we relate to our neighbors? Obviously, most importantly, the Golf Course. We’ve met with them to address concerns about visual issues and other issues. We agreed to limit ATV’s and snowmobiles. We will continue to work with the Golf Course regarding our mutual issues regarding planned management of a storm water facility. We’ve agreed to make it very clear in our sales document that membership in the Golf Course does not come automatically with purchasing. Several weeks ago at the suggestion of the Zoning Board of Appeals we conducted a balloon test on the property to determine what the view would be from off site to the Golf Course and Interstate 84. We’ve documented all of that. I think we have two issues that the Board has asked us to look into over which is to summarize the Site Plan and show you the architectural renderings.

J. O’Connell: We have a water feature which is shown on the plan. We have open space right here. Again, our landscape designer actually moved this up here. We have a gazebo on the property here. As you get back up the main roadway you reach the clubhouse area. Around the clubhouse we have our garden condominium buildings. We have our in-ground pool, tot pool, and a sports court. Our illustrations show that. Explained the various buildings on the site. These are the garden condominium units. These were requested from the Board. We provide handicap accessible units on the first floor and duplexes above. We have sidewalks on one side of the street so everyone can have walking access.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board before I go to the Public.

A. Dulgarian: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Nothing right now.

G. Lake: Is there anyone who wishes to comment on this application?

T. Buckheit: I’m the President of the Orange County Golf Club. We are they’re closest neighbor. I would say that they’ve been very accommodating as far as addressing our issues and answering our questions. We had the issues with the Zoning Board which they have accommodated. As far as the water runoff, that appears to have all been taken care of also. I would just say as being up front, nothing to hide outfit everything seems very positive as far as we’re concerned.

MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 8:12 P.M. made by G. Monaco and seconded by T. Hamilton.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 4 AYES

G. Lake: Dick’s comments. We have eight. I believe that at the last work session, we kind of have a semi-agreement on #3, #4, #5. I think the main concern would be with traffic. I think we talked about that extensively.

J. VanTile: Absolutely. We’ve seen this letter. It absolutely represents the discussions that we had.

G. Lake: Zoning Board of Appeals, how did you make out?

J. VanTile: We had the balloon test which was very widely attended. The hearing there will continue on Monday the 20th. We hope to resolve all their concerns. We think we’ve addressed all the visual concerns concerning the variances.

G. Lake: Let me go back to the Board.

A. Dulgarian: I would have liked to seen the balloon test.

G. Lake: Did you bring those photographs?

J. VanTile: We have them, yes.

G. Lake: Why don’t you pass them so the Board may see them?

G. Monaco: Can you tell us what kind of relief you’re looking for?

J. VanTile: I don’t think we’re requesting any waiver of anything.

G. Monaco: About the improvements.

J. VanTile: We’ve been told that the Town has a traffic impact fee from projects that don’t actually do road improvements. We’re, in fact, proposing to do these improvements above and beyond what the cost of the fee would be substantially. We’ve been told that the Town’s practice is that when you do actual work you can offset the value of the work against the fee. Actually, we’re doing more work for the Town that the fee is.

G. Monaco: It is a very accommodating project.

G. Lake: Yes, Mr. Monaco that has been worked on quite a bit at work sessions. They are doing a certain amount of work.

J. VanTile: But we’re not asking for any special treatment.

G. Lake: To make their project work, they have agreed to update their studies.

J. VanTile: I believe we have done that well beyond.

G. Monaco: It’s a great project.

T. Hamilton: I know we have been working on this quite a bit and it seems that everything that has been requested has come through.

G. Lake: Back to you, Mr. Dulgarian.

A. Dulgarian: I know they have to come back. They have been most accommodating. The project looks a lot different from when it first started.

G. Lake: I have no further comments. The Public Hearing is closed. The Public has ten days to comment by written comments.

G. Barone: Ask for the waiver from the applicant?

J. VanTile: On the record, we do waive the time frame.

Tabled for further review.

5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 P.M. - TIME WARNER - SITE PLAN - Industrial Drive (41-1-26.41) #060-003

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 8:18 P.M. M. Hunt read the Public Hearing notice.

G. Lake: Why don’t you bring the Board up to speed and tell them a little bit about the proposal.

M. Searage: What Time Warner is doing is they’re taking the existing 35,000 square foot building on the corner of Tower and Industrial Drive and leaving the building as is. The only alterations which are going to be taking place is additional parking along the east side and the north side of the existing parking lot. We are going to be including landscaping that was all submitted. There were also some comments from Mr. McGoey but I know he had some concerns about the shifts. Mr. Wells, from Time Warner can basically tell the Board how those shifts work.

G. Lake: Before I go to the Public, let me go through the Board real quick.

A. Dulgarian: After Public.

G. Monaco: Not at this time.

T. Hamilton: After Public.

G. Lake: Is there anyone from the Public who wishes to comment on this application?

MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 8:20 P.M. made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by G. Monaco.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 4 AYES

A. Dulgarian: The change in parking is just due to the change of the use in the building?

M. Searage: Yes.

A. Dulgarian: This is going to be like offices?

M. Searage: There are a series of offices and also there’s a call center that’s basically what the building is for.

A. Dulgarian: This is more or less for the DSL?

R. Wells: What this building is for, we’re consolidating our several locations throughout Newburgh and Ferndale and bringing them down here to Middletown. In addition, we’re developing a call center for our high speed customers, in addition to the cable calls. In addition to that, general administration will be here, advertising sales, direct sales, telemarketing, collections, a variety of different departments. Really, the whole company will be moving to here.

A. Dulgarian: All office type functions?

R. Wells: Yes.

A. Dulgarian: First off, I think it’s a good use. You’re right across the street. It will be a good addition for the Town, perfect location, all that type of thing. Most of the comments here of a nature that Mr. McGoey can handle. My only question is because we have a new business going in there and it’s an office type of generation which will generate more traffic, can we get them to participate in that traffic light there? At some point, it’s going to happen, right?

G. Lake: We are probably very close to that.

A. Dulgarian: Well, something like this might put us over.

G. Lake: I believe we asked the Supervisor about it. I don’t know the answer to your question.

T. Hamilton: There were specific lots that were listed as contributors as they came in. I’m not sure if this was one of them.

A. Dulgarian: I’m just saying that the type of business that used to be there as a traffic generator and the type of business that’s going in there, also it is an improvement, it’s going to generate a little bit more traffic and we need that light. Other than that, I like this a lot.

G. Lake: What I will tell you is the non new developers, this was included. I think we are very close though.

A. Dulgarian: I just figured I would mention it.

G. Monaco: It is a good use for the building.

T. Hamilton: As long as it complies with Mr. McGoey’s comments.

G. Lake: Do you have any problems with the comments?

M. Searage: No. Actually I do have some of them taken care of now.

A. Dulgarian: I think that’s something that can be handled by Mr. McGoey.

G. Lake: I have no further comments. I think it’s a good use for the building.

MOTION for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by G. Monaco.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 4 AYES

MOTION for SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT subject to D. McGoey’s comments made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by T. Hamilton.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 4 AYES

6. LYONS - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - Route 211 East & Bart Bull Road (31-1-33) #021-003

T. Ptak: We were previously before the Board on this. We’re here basically to request a two lot subdivision on a neighborhood commercial property located near the intersection of Bart Bull Road and Route 211 East. I think that the biggest question at the last meeting was how long this had been a single parcel. There’s been a note added to the map that it’s been this way at least ten years and I believe it’s been this way since the 1940's. The parcel does have considerable wetlands on it which have been mapped by the Department of Environmental Conservation and all of that information has been sent to them. Mr. Godler has that information and that’s one of Dick’s comments, will be added to the map. Do you want me to go over the comments?

G. Lake: Yes.

T. Ptak: The first comments is to put Mr. Godler’s information on the map which we shall do. The location map, Mr. McGoey wanted the Town roads labeled which we shall do. We have a note on there that there will be no further subdivision on the lots. We do agree to that and Mr. McGoey wants it on each individual map and not as a general note. Typical driveway profiles will be added. A setback distance to the dwelling units should be shown which we will add. Item #6 and item #7 I have received today approval from Eustance & Horowitz. A copy of that was sent to the Board. Item #8, I’m really not sure. We discussed this at length at the last meeting that this was in the neighborhood commercial zone and was unaffected by the new zoning changes.

G. Lake: This is in NC?

T. Ptak: Yes.

G. Lake: I don’t remember any changes in the NC area, do you Mr. Hamilton?

T. Ptak: I know we did discuss this.

J. Lyons: We addressed this at the last meeting that we had with you. I thought that was resolved. You had said NC was not changed and therefore it didn’t fit into the new requirements.

G. Lake: I don’t believe it was. Mr. Barone?

G. Barone: No. I didn’t get any changes for NC.

Next Page