G. Lake: You want to schedule a Public Hearing for the 7th of January?

P. Higby: Yes.

G. Lake: Do you have another work session already scheduled?

P. Higby: Yes, for December 22, 2003.

G. Lake: Dick, didn’t we discuss about the sheet runoff as being part of the storm water management plan?

D. McGoey: It has to be part of the storm water management plan.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Is this the existing salon or is this down further?

P. Higby: It is existing.

P. Owen: Nothing.

R. Carr: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Nothing.

G. Lake: You have your work session scheduled so we can make a motion for a Public Hearing.

MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for January 7, 2004 made by T. Hamilton and seconded by A. Dulgarian.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

6. KAILRAO - GAS STATION - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - East Main Street & Schutt Road (50-2-17.2) #005-003

A. Fusco: I represent the applicant for this project. I’ve received the comments from October 29th from Mr. McGoey’s office and we are proceeding. We have engaged John Collins and Phil Grealy to do a traffic study for this project. He was also asked about two or three weeks ago so we hope to be able to bring this to your engineer shortly. He did indicate that they were going to be starting the traffic counts probably last week. We are looking to move forward with the traffic study. This also relates to item #3 in relationship to left hand turns in and out of East Main Street and Schutt Road. We would like to see the outcome of the traffic study before we make a final determination on that and we would appreciate your indulgence to have that traffic study completed for that item. I didn’t really skip over item #2 but the other ones were related. In relationship to the second comment regarding the site being a little busy many of these convenience type areas have these accommodations and we don’t believe these are out of line and would like to continue with the requested proposals. We are again it relates to the cue lengths of traffic and we are going to wait until we get the traffic study. It should be shortly. We are setting up another work session and we will be able to bring all these comments up to current. We do understand we need a variance for the canopy and we are moving forward on that. Is that something that’s appropriate to begin now or should we wait until we’re a little further in the approval process?

G. Lake: He can go without us, correct or do we have to send him?

G. Barone: You can either send him or refer him.

G. Lake: I think, at this point in time, this is a very busy site. It’s been here a long time in and out. I haven’t seen a lot movement and I don’t think I would feel comfortable sending you to the Zoning Board of Appeals just yet.

A. Fusco: I don’t have a problem with that.

G. Lake: I don’t want to have them put on the spot.

A. Fusco: I understand that. In relationship to the surveying information is that we have certified the surveys. In addition to that we did have a wetland delineation on the property and that has been delineated on the new map which you really don’t have yet. You will have it for the next session. We did make provisions and we did go over the storm water management plan and treatment by the Department of Environmental Conservation. We have put in an underground tubing systems which are shown on the plan I have here. We are going to take the sketch plan approval on the lot without developing it. I will put that on a separate sheet so as not to confuse the approval process and we will put in larger scales on the drawings for the site improvements. We will comply with most of the requirements that have been set forth. One of the things we would like to do again, a lot is pending on the traffic analysis but we would like to have your consensus of sketch plan towards this and possibly Lead Agency designation. We have met with the County and we have complied with their requirements that they’ve asked. I met with Mr. Lee and Mr. Kennedy on this and we would like to proceed and move this in a timely fashion.

G. Lake: You say you’ve met with the County, Mr. Lee I believe you said?

A. Fusco: That’s correct.

G. Lake: Have you had any comments from them for this Board?

A. Fusco: We got some comments from Mr. Kennedy regarding the right-of-ways that they’ve asked for twenty feet on East Main Street and twenty feet on Schutt Road. That was from Mr. Kennedy. We have accommodated that. In addition to that they had asked us to have our entrances two hundred fifty feet from both intersections which we have complied with. Those were their comments basically which we have shown on the plan.

G. Lake: Are you going to provide us with that letter?

A. Fusco: Absolutely. I believe you may already have it in the file.

G. Lake: I might have missed it then. Let me go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: I have a lot of concerns about this application. Starting with the unusual configuration of lot #2 and why configured out like that and also that the back of that lot is in a PID zone and how that is going to be affected in the future. I have a problem with the right-of-way taking of property shown on both streets and that the minimum landscaping required should be starting after the right-of-way because the requirements should be onto the property after the right-of-way. I also have concerns with, right next door, we have A & D management looking to put in their office buildings. This project adjoins, I guess you will call it lot #2. The proposed office project should be looked at together and perhaps share the driveway, both are small lots. This would cut down on the number of curb cuts needed on East Main Street. They are both small properties, not including all the back that you can’t use. I have no problem with that six thousand square foot office building but I do think if we can do something in conjunction with the other use. I also have a problem with the number of uses and the intensity of each use. It’s not conducive to this location. The things to consider are the number of trips per hour generated by each use. We have a gas station, a Dunkin Donuts, a deli, a convenience store and a car wash. This isn’t a little car wash either. Dunkin Donuts alone would generate approximately sixty transactions per hour with a typical consumer spending an average of less than three minutes in the store. This information was provided to us by the Krispy Kreme. This intersection has major bus traffic for Mechanicstown School. The length of busses greatly affect the cue lengths on East Main Street and Schutt Road. 6:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. is the busiest time for a donut shop and it’s also the busiest time for busses. They peak at the same time. We’re looking at an intersection that’s probably a “D” now. I just can’t see it. I also have problems with the storm water, car wash water and icing of the car wash water and how that would affect the rest of that property when they pull out of there on to higher ground. The uses and the intensity of the proposed uses on this site are not in the best interest of the Town in my view. It would affect the quality of life and it would have a serious impact on this corridor and neighborhood. I just think it is too much for that. I really can’t wait for that corridor to be developed but I don’t think this is the proper uses for that.

P. Owen: I would just like to echo Mr. Dulgarian’s comments. It is an awful busy project having all those different uses. It is a busy corridor right now without that being there. I can’t imagine what all those different uses would add.

R. Carr: I totally concur with everything that has been said. I can’t imagine that this would be conducive at this location in terms of the existing traffic flow. It is a tough intersection without adding several uses on top of it.

G. Monaco: I have a problem with the traffic in the area now and adding this would increase the situation. I don’t think it is conducive to the area.

T. Hamilton: I concur with the rest of the Board members and plus it’s a big safety factor for people coming in and out of that establishment on the corner with all those uses. And the talk of going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance on the canopy, I think the applicant is creating his own hardship by putting all of these uses on the site. Let them design it so they don’t need the variance. Maybe he needs less uses on it and the canopy would work without going to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He’s creating the hardship himself.

G. Lake: The canopy has usually gone to the Zoning Board for approval however your comments are justified.

A. Fusco: I was just going to mimic what you just said about the Zoning Board of Appeals is that basically that canopy, isn’t as much about the uses, but is in the ordinance that in order to put something in the front we need a variance and probably every canopy in the Town had to do that step.

T. Hamilton: Put the canopy on the side.

A. Fusco: Well, this is sort of a corner lot so we have two front yards. We can look at that. We don’t have a problem looking at any of the items. The critical component of this is obviously going to be the traffic analysis. One of the things I think that also is where some of the comments are coming from is in relationship to the existing intersection. I believe that we recognize that and that’s what the traffic study is going to outline. The County recognizes that. That’s why they asked us for twenty feet on either side so we can make improvements to this intersection. I believe that eventually that this site is going to be developed in some fashion. The proposed developer of this is going to own and operate it and we’ve been proceeding with trying to comply with all of their requirements.

G. Lake: In all fairness to the Board and I just want to get this on record is that the very first time I saw a work session, I think I did point out two things to you. One, that a similar operation was not desired and did not move forward by the Board at that time because the Board felt at that time there was a better use that would go along with the neighborhood such as an office or things like that. I also made sure that the Board may not pass this and I tried to make sure that you understood that. I don’t want any misconceptions on this.

A. Fusco: I appreciate that.

G. Lake: I think the Board was very honest with you but I think it will be between yourself and the owner if you want to continue on. We still have issues with East Main Street.

A. Fusco: I appreciate that. One of the things that I did want to mention is in relationship to need. There has been some conversations about the number of gas stations. Really, there aren’t a lot.

A. Dulgarian: I don’t believe that’s the issue.

G. Lake: I don’t think the Board at any one time counts businesses. I don’t remember that statement being made. I don’t think they would do that. That’s not our job. Our job is to make sure that we do the best we can for the Town of Wallkill.

A. Fusco: We will take all of your comments under advisement and we will set up another work session when we have the traffic study.

MOTION to TABLE for further review made by T. Hamilton and seconded by R. Carr.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

7. BAUM - 9 LOT SUBDIVISION - Route 211 East, Miller & VanAmburgh Roads -
(31-1-17) #111-002

J. Nosek: I am with Roger Ferris Engineering & Surveying. I’m representing Mr. & Mrs. Baum. They are proposing a nine lot subdivision on a piece of property at NYS Route 211 and VanAmburgh Road & Miller Road. We have submitted this plan to the Town Engineer. We have had a work shop meeting to incorporate a lot of his comments. I did get the latest set of his comments. Essentially we’re going to have the existing house, metal barn, one lot on Route 211 with three more additional lots on Route 211 and then we will have three more lots which would front on to VanAmburgh Road and then we will have two more lots with which will front on to Miller Road. All the lots will be serviced by individual wells and septics.

G. Lake: Do you want to go through Dick’s comments?

J. Nosek: I will go through them very quickly. Item #1, the soils formula. We have no problem. We will provide that information on the plans. Item #2, I guess is one of the more controversial comments. Apparently there’s lots #2, #3, and #6 which have septic systems in soils which do not allow septic systems. What we did was, we pull in the Orange County Soils Maps from our computer software. We show it as per the computer program. Myself, personally, I believe there is some sort of an error or mistake because on lots #2 and #3, the site has gravel soils and we’re well above the steeper slope which is typically what the 90's soils would refer to. I’m not quite sure if there’s a mistake on the Orange County Soils Maps or what but clearly on those lots we are well above the steeper slope areas. The soils are very good and perhaps almost ideal for septic systems. They are a nice gravelly loam with sand. I don’t know, Dick, how you want to handle it or if we can have a witness testing. There’s definitely some sort of an error with the Orange County Soil Maps.

D. McGoey: In the past, the only way to get around it is to have a Soil Scientist evaluate the soils and have the agency identify the new soils and take them to Orange County.

J. Nosek: Perhaps a percolation test or something?

D. McGoey: They have to identify the soil types and confirm that they’re not the soil type as recorded on the map.

J. Nosek: I would certainly welcome the opportunity to go out and we can take a look at the slopes but by virtual of our topography it’s pretty clear it’s not a “D” slope. It’s not a 9D, in fact it’s probably a D. We certainly could go a look to hire a Soil Scientist but I think just by a field observation out there that we can verify it.

D. McGoey: It’s a slope issue. The other site may have the same soil types.

J. Nosek: The other site on lot #6, we can pull the septic system up to be totally out of that area and more possibly bring it up to the front and pump up to it if it warrants. It is an expanded soil. You can see where the line is and they’re not much further below that is where we put the wetland fill. I think the septic would work there but I don’t know if it’s worth arguing. I’m more concerned about lots #2 and #3 because I think it’s very clear that the areas are well suited for septic systems. Item #3, agricultural district regulations. We understand. We’re going to have to send out data statements. We have no problem with that. The attorney needs to review the agricultural district notes.

G. Barone: Gave Mr. Nosek the note to be put on the plan.

J. Nosek: Item #4 regarding the improvements to Miller Road. We will submit plans to the Highway Department Superintendent. Our understanding from speaking to Mr. & Mrs. Baum that the Highway Superintendent requested that they provide the Town with the culvert to replace the culvert that’s there and that the Town would put that in. I think he is in agreement to do that. The Town Engineer is saying that we don’t have any confirmation from the Highway Superintendent so we will get him to a set of plans and we will get something from him in writing.

D. McGoey: Hopefully he will be there at the next work session.