G. Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
7.MASONIC CREEK – 8 LOT SUBDIVISION – Silver Lake
Scotchtown Road (40-1-17.4) #026-003
J.
Tirolli: Since our last meeting with the Board we have revised
the plan to comply with your request and the Department of Public
Works request for the driveways. The lot width, the depth ratio
was an issue the last time. We prefer the lots extending all the
way to the rear. We’ve changed the plan to comply with the
lot width and depth ratio. The current plan reflects the comments
made by your Board, Department of Public Works and Mr. McGoey.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: I think there are too many lots there.
P.
Owen: What zone is this, R-1?
J. Tirolli: Yes.
P.
Owen: What is the number of lots?
J.
Tirolli: The current number shown is eight.
R.
Carr: The lots are too many, too narrow, too many driveways on
that part of the road. That’s a busy road. I realize you’ve
got all kinds of restraints with the wetlands but it has just
too many driveways and they are very close together.
G. Lake: This is where they’ve been from the beginning,
eight five in the work session?
J.
Tirolli: Eight five, oh, lot width.
G.
Lake: I think we talked about it at the work session and they
were eighty five feet at that time.
J.
Tirolli: That’s right.
L.
Wolinsky: There’s two. One at one hundred thirty, one at
one hundred twenty five and the rest is.
G.
Luenzmann: I have the same comment. In fact, I think I made the
same comment about this property before. It’s a very busy
area and with all those houses it’s going to be dangerous.
My comments before were to open these lots up and make it larger.
These two homes down here should be setback further from the road.
J.
Tirolli: Lots #7 and #8?
G.
Luenzmann: Yes.
J.
Tirolli: Lot #8 is constrained with the wetlands.
1.
Luenzmann: I understand.
J.
Tirolli: Lot #7 could certainly be moved back and so could lot
#6.
2. Luenzmann: I don’t think it’s changed since the
last time it was here.
L.
Wolinsky: No it hasn’t. The first time you saw it the lot
lines ran all the way, each lot had the lot line extended back
across to the front. There were common driveways initially. The
driveways have been split but that was at the request of the Town,
the Town Highway Superintendent. He reviewed this and has not
expressed the safety concerns that you were expressing. We have
to get a handle on that collectively together because from what
I’m hearing that’s the main concern. If it’s
a concern we aught to try and identify the way we deal with that
concern, like either study it or have a report done on it. These
conform with your existing zoning.
G. Luenzmann: I understand what you are saying but I still have
a concern about it.
The developments that we have on this road all have a single access
and are squared off into cul-de-sacs or what have you so we don’t
have an overload of ingress and egress off the road. I’m
still concerned about that.
L.
Wolinsky: I hear you.
G.
Monaco: It is also a safety issue.
G.
Lake: Is this your first time here?
J.
Tirolli: No, the second time.
L.
Wolinsky: It was in work sessions as well.
G.
Lake: In all fairness, I can remember at the work session and
I think Mr. McGoey also brought it up and that I didn’t
think the Board was going to go with it.
L.
Wolinsky: We hear you. However, the fact of the matter is these
lots comply with the zoning law and if there’s a concern
that should some how, whether it’s aesthetics or it’s
safety that overrides the zoning, I think we have the right to
build a record to demonstrate that concern. Right now I don’t
think we have anything. We’ve been to the Town Highway Department
and Mr. Lippert was telling me we haven’t heard that it
was a concern in that respect.
J Tirolli: We had the plan out and he told me what he wanted.
L.
Wolinsky: You have a right to still be concerned about it. What
I would like to do is get at least the SEQRA process started here
and give us the ability to address what I’ve heard the concerns
to be which is multiple driveways too close together and see where
we land on that.
A. Dulgarian: Unfortunately those lots don’t have enough
setbacks. That’s what the concern is.
L.
Wolinsky: I hear what you’re saying but this is a conforming
subdivision and you have to either you play by the rules or you’re
not going to play by the rules. This is the rule. If you have
additional environmental concerns that need to be addressed give
us the opportunity to address those. Put yourself in my shoes.
I have a client asking me does this conform to the Town Zoning
Regulations? I have to say, yes.
A.
Dulgarian: We have been requesting more than our zoning regulations
from all the applicants that have come before us.
L.
Wolinsky: I appreciate that.
A.
Dulgarian: It’s also in the best interest of the Town that
we do so and that’s all we’re asking of you and your
client.
L. Wolinsky: I appreciate it. I don’t want to get into the
illegal technicalities, that’s not the issue. The concerns
that you’re raising, if they’re safety concerns that
you’re raising I want the opportunity to be able to address
those concerns. Maybe we find out when we look at it that you’re
right. But we aught to have that dialogue about that because the
configuration of this property does not allow us to stick a road
in here and put lots off roads. It’s just the way it is.
We have to do something else and quite frankly too hundred foot
lot widths here at this rate cuts us down by a tremendous number
of lots. Maybe we will get two or three lots at the most here.
That’s in comparison to eight lots. That’s a real
financial impact. When a business person is out there looking
at that financial impact, they will want to know that there is
a real valid reason that he’s going to have to take the
hit. That’s where we are here, I think. What I would like
to do tonight is get the SEQRA process started and then let us
or someone take a look at this for safety purposes and see where
we land. Maybe it would be revised based on that and then we say
to you this is what we found out.
G.
Lake: The Masonic Creek there, the setback?
J.
Tirolli: We’re outside the flood zone. There’s a heavy
line with two dashes, that’s the flood area. All the houses
and rear yards are out of the flood zone.
G.
Lake: You heard before with the last applicant. The Town Board
is looking for sidewalks. It’s become an issue.
L.
Wolinsky: You want sidewalks along the Silver Lake Scotchtown
Road, there?
G.
Lake: I believe we are. Dick, do you have anything else?
D.
McGoey: I think you got adequate indication that they have safety
concerns. If you want to hire a professional that’s up to
you. Then this Board will review that report.
L.
Wolinsky: I think that’s a process that we can work with.
Can we get the Lead Agency started though?
1.
McGoey: It’s an unlisted action.
L.
Wolinsky: We don’t have to coordinate? No coordination?
D.McGoey:
To who?
L.
Wolinsky: Do we have any other?
J.
Tirolli: We need Orange County Department of Health Approval because
we’re connecting to a water main.
L. Wolinsky: It’s up to you. It’s not a Type I but
if you want to go ahead.
G.
Lake: So, you’re going to go back to another work session?
L.
Wolinsky: Yes. We will address that safety issue.
G. Lake: And you’ve also heard the feelings of the Board.
L.
Wolinsky: I understand.
MOTION
to TABLE this application for further review 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
8. KABRO – SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Cottage
Street Extension – (40-1-50.1) #013-002
L.
Potter: I’m with Lanc & Tully Engineers. We’ve
been before the Board for about almost two years now. This is
an age restricted residential gated community of two hundred twenty
three units on one hundred twenty one acres. They are located
on the easterly side of Cottage Street Extension. We have been
before the Board before and have addressed Mr. McGoey’s
comments in work sessions and have received his latest review
comments. We are here before the Board to request Site Plan/Special
Use Permit approval. We have also compared a Negative Declaration,
Special Use Permit and Site Plan Resolutions drafted and these
have been reviewed by your consultant. Also an agreement for the
emergency access cross easement with Wallkill Manor has been re-defined.
G.
Lake: This is for Preliminary?
L. Wolinsky: It’s a Conditional Final. We talked about Preliminary
the last time as a result of the, because we were going to section
it but we’re not sectioning the plan anymore. It’s
all going to be bonded all at one time. That kind of eliminated
that issue.
G.
Lake: Conditional Final you said?
L.
Wolinsky: Well, it’s a Site Plan and Special Use Permit
approval subject to conditions that are set forth in the resolutions
that has been drafted and reviewed by your consultants.
G.
Lake: Why don’t we go through Dick’s comments before
I go back to the Board. Let’s get them out of the way to
make sure they’re satisfied at this point before we continue?
L.
Potter: In regard to item #1 that we’re to verify the existing
storm drainage system at Mud Mills Road and Cottage Street Extension
including the existing 15’ pipe is capable of handling the
discharge from the detention pond to the other corner of the property.
At this time we meet the pre and proposed development conditions
for the site. However, the existing 15’ at this present
time does not meet the environment. It’s a Town drainage
pipe and as I said we do meet the pre and proposed development
conditions.
D.
McGoey: The problem you’re creating is that your concentrated
storm water discharge is going to one point. There is an on site
concentration of flow now and you’re expecting the Town
drainage system to handle that flow concentration. There will
have to be some mitigation. We can’t have flooding in the
road.
L.
Potter: What we can do is we could find a way to financially give
the Town money to the Highway Department to include that.
D.
McGoey: Why doesn’t he propose to take it other parts of
property rather than through the Town?
G.
Lake: Part of it is something that the outlook on what the Department
of Public Works does is changing a little bit and it’s part
of the reason we’ve been asking for things to be built instead
of taking the money as part of that changing that is happening.
We have a condition that Dick feels at this point.
L. Wolinsky: I think the issue is, I just spoke with. We don’t
have any problem with doing it ourselves. The problem is that
in order to do it there’s a wetland encroachment that has
to be taken care of. What we need to do is have the Town be the
applicant so, we’re not the applicant for that wetland permit
and we could do the work and pay for it. It’s just like
when the Town is the applicant for a sewer line extension. If
that’s okay, I think we’re okay.
G.
Lake: I think that’s to get it going.
D.
McGoey: Yes. I don’t think that’s a problem. They
can make out the application.
L.
Potter: As far as storm drainage, we will clarify any of your
application issues. In regard to traffic Phil Griely is here from
John Collins.
P.
Griely: With respect to item #8 in Dick’s memo, the traffic
signal system that we’ve provided there we will make a revision
to address the north bound west turn movement. The phasing on
that diagram would be split into a sub-base to give an advanced
arrows for the north bound left on Mud Mills Road. We can work
it out.
D.
McGoey: Do they need to widen the road to get an additional lane
there?
P.
Griely: No. We would put in an advanced signal phase because the
traffic flows pretty directional there. Morning, mostly south
bound, afternoon mostly north bound. So, what we can do is arrange
the phasing on the signal. All we would do is put in an additional
loop protector and right now we just had a green ball indication
is put an advanced arrow so you end up with a split phase to get
the left turns advanced out.
D.
McGoey: What if the fifth car in line wants to make a left hand
turn . . .
P.
Griely: The way that we would have the signal set up right now
is the flows that are out there, the north bound flow is the heavy
movement that you would be doing. What we would do is clear that
out and yes, there may be an occasion where you may get a stoppage
there but the analysis that was done actually had that phasing
in there.
D.
McGoey: I would like to look at it.
P. Griely: We can look at it with you. There may be enough room
in there to get the widening there for one or two cars. Once we
start doing the work there, we can work it out. I’m sure
we can work it out with Mr. McGoey.
G.
Lake: You were going to wait for that signage if it doesn’t
work out?
D.
McGoey: We can work it out.
P.
Griely: There was one other note that he had also asked us relative
to the signal about the additional signing that was requested.
Once the signal goes up there would be a period that there would
be advanced signing which wasn’t on the plans. We’re
going to add that also.
G.
Lake: Dick, do you feel okay with that then?
D.
McGoey: We can work it out.
L.
Wolinsky: It has to be worked out before anything is signed.
D.
McGoey: I was just talking to the Attorney about the approval
process. If you recall, the Fairways, very similar in scope, was
granted Preliminary Approval to allow the applicant to go ahead.
G.
Lake: Okay, go ahead. Let’s finish up the comments.
P.
Griely: The last comment #9 is the traffic plan sheets should
be part of the approved set of plans. They should be in there.
D.
McGoey: They’re in there but they’re not numbered.
P.
Griely: They are sheets 25 through 28.
G.
Lake: Let’s finish up the comments.
L.
Potter: That was all of the comments.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board.
