J. Nosek: Also Dick had requested that we show the site distances on Route 211. We have no problem providing those. I can tell you that the site distances are very good. It’s a very long, straight stretch of road so I don’t envision there will be too many problems.

G. Lake: Miller Road, Dick?

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Lake: There’s another project across the street?

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Lake: Are we going to look at them together to straighten that out?

D. McGoey: We’re going to have to.

J. Nosek: We have a meeting set up for I believe Monday. It was the closest time we could get to meet together.

G. Lake: Was the Highway Superintendent invited?

J. Nosek: If he wants to. I don’t know if he will be at that meeting, I’m not sure.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Nothing at this time.

P. Owen: Nothing.

R. Carr: I would be concerned about the trees being removed.

J. Nosek: I can tell you that the majority of the site or at least certainly here is agricultural farm field.

R. Carr: Also it is important that the larger trees be saved. What is the size Dick?

D. McGoey: Six inches in diameter or larger.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Nothing.

MOTION to TABLE for further review made by P. Owen 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

8. STORE ALL SELF SERVICE - SITE PLAN - Dosen Road/Route 17M (3-1-35.2) #058-003

G. Lake: Tell us what you want to do.

M. Siemers: Basically we’re proposing two buildings to provide self service storage on approximately 5.27 acres of land between NYS Route 17M and NYS Route 17. The buildings are being proposed to be serviced by individual wells and septics. Parking calculations for each building is based on the square footage of the building have been provided and the parking spaces are shown on the plan. The property is located in the HC zone which we will be discussing and tonight we’re looking for your input on the actual site plan so we can move forward.

J. Terach: We’re looking at two buildings on the site. We’re looking to doing a two-story building of self service lockers around the perimeter of the building. They will be climate controlled. The material of the building will basically be split face block, colored block along with metal color panels to the second floor areas as well as metal panel roof system on the towers on either side of the building.

A. Acupenti: I’m the attorney for the applicant. I just need to make an observation about item #6. The HC zone that this particular project is in which is a self service storage facility. That particular zone allows personal service establishments and service establishments. The problem is that there is no definition code that defines either of those things. We have a situation where it is probably going to need according to the Planning Board Attorney a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation of whether or not this particular project would fit in this zone. In my opinion it does because when you look at the other zones which is clearly a more intense commercial zone in your code MI. It mentions warehousing in there but it seems to me that in connection with the uses that are in that zone which are more intense commercial uses, that the kind of warehousing that they’re talking about is the general kind that would be governed under the Uniform Commercial Code. With this kind of a situation you don’t have commercial goods transaction. It is basically home owners looking for a rental space. It seems to me it fits more with the service establishments under the HC zone than it does with the heavier use.

G. Lake: My only comment basically at this point is we have had self storage come in on a similar case and at that time the determination on this Board was made that it did not fall in that category and it was denied at that time. I would therefore, being part of that Board, when that decision was made I think I would have to stick by that. I would surely be ready to recognize the determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

A. Acupenti: The prior application didn’t go through the Zoning Board of Appeals?

G. Lake: It was their choice and I think they decided not to. I really don’t remember.

D. McGoey: They went to the Town Board first.

G. Lake: They went to the Town Board and got denied. What you’re asking for is a determination from the Zoning Board on this, correct?

A. Acupenti: Correct.

G. Lake: I will poll the Board. It would give you a better direction.

A. Dulgarian: Is that what you’re looking for, an interpretation about a use variance?

A. Acupenti: No. I would be looking for a variance because what I’m saying is that under your code . . .

A. Dulgarian: that it is permitted.

A. Acupenti: Would be permitted because this more fits in that zone under a service establishment and clearing that’s what it is. It is a self service storage place for household goods basically. With all due respect when you get into the issue of what is a warehouse, it is clearly anything that you can store stuff in is a warehouse however, when we’re talking about the distinction between the kind of warehousing you can get into more commercial stuff where you are actually hiring out the goods. When you’re talking about a situation where you have no interest in the goods whatsoever you are simply renting space. That’s all you’re doing. You don’t even know what goods are being stored. You have no control over them. People have their own keys and locks. There is a distinction with the kind of use.

G. Lake: I think we should move forward.

A. Dulgarian: Go for the interpretation.

P. Owen: Same.

R. Carr: I agree.

G. Monaco: Zoning Board of Appeals.

T. Hamilton: Let the Zoning Board of Appeals do it but if you read the warehouse definition is says “a building or part of a building for storing of goods, wares and merchandise, whether for the owner or for others, and whether it is a public or private warehouse.”

G. Lake: Personally I think it is one of the vague things in our code. We can just send him, correct?

G. Barone: You can either deny the application or refer him to the Zoning Board.

G. Lake: I think I would just refer him.

MOTION for a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an INTERPRETATION of the code made by A. Dulgarian 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

9. VOLPE - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - Brookline & Victory Streets (75-4-9) #070-003

S. Plass: We have a proposed two lot subdivision on the corner of Victory Street and Brookline Avenue. We had a work session with Mr. McGoey on August 26th I believe and at that time he pointed out we needed a variance either for an area variance or for an accessory building for the five foot minimum. At that meeting, it was decided by Mr. Lake and Mr. McGoey and we should go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get a variance for an accessory building. We’ve done that and received our approval at the October 20th meeting and it was granted. Basically we’re here to request for approval of a two lot subdivision. We received a few comments from Mr. McGoey. Items #1 and #2 we just discussed the zoning variance. Item #3 is the grading and drainage plan. We’ve already done some of these comments since we’ve received them on Monday or Tuesday. Driveway profile, we’ve done that also. The width of the driveway. It is a single family dwelling and would be twelve feet. Trench details will have to be put on the plan. The finished floor elevations have been added as well as (not clear). We also put a note on about no facilities in the basement unless a pump is designed. The need for the adjoining properties, I wasn’t sure why that was needed.

D. McGoey: We want to make sure the front of the house is setback appropriately, etc.

S. Plass: My understanding is it is back beyond us and the driveway is off the property line significantly. We can show it.

D. McGoey: And any type of drainage should be shown.

S. Plass: We’re not proposing changing the flow of drainage. It’s still going to go out to the basin that’s in front of the lot.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: I have nothing other than Dick’s information.

P. Owen: Nothing.

R. Carr: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Nothing.

G. Lake: Dick, I know you’re saying no recommendation at this point.

D. McGoey: It’s up to the Board.

G. Lake: Is it mostly engineering items?

D. McGoey: Yes. It’s up to you.

G. Lake: Let me ask the Board before we do that.

A. Dulgarian: I have no problem as long as Dick’s comments are resolved to giving a subject to approval.

P. Owen: I feel the same way.

R. Carr: Same.

G. Monaco: I agree.

T. Hamilton: I agree.

MOTION made for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION subject to D. McGoey’s comments made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

MOTION for a TWO LOT SUBDIVISION approval subject to D. McGoey’s comments made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

10. WALLKILL INDUSTRIAL PARK - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE P9ERMIT - EXTENSION - Rykowski Lane (60-1-84) #012-003

P. Sheridan: We’re requesting an extension of our conditional final approval to construct a 12,000 square foot medical building on lot #2 on Rykowski Lane.

A. Dulgarian: Is this your first extension?

P. Sheridan: Yes.

A. Dulgarian: First extensions are customarily given with no problem.

MOTION for a ONE YEAR EXTENSION made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES