MOTION for SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Nay

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Nay

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 5 AYES, 2 NAYS

1. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - DR. WODKA - SITE PLAN - Industrial Drive (41-1-88) #038-002

G. Lake: Name for the record, please?

T. Milo: Thomas Milo representing the applicant.

G. Lake: Do you have the notice and mailings as it appeared in the paper?

T. Milo: Yes.

G. Lake: I will have Mrs. Hunt read the notice.

T. Milo: We didn’t attach the notice. We have the note saying a copy was sent.

G. Lake: Do you know if it was in the paper?

T. Milo: Dr. Wodka put it in the paper.

G. Lake: Mr. Barone?

G. Barone: If it is for Site Plan, it has to be by Certified Mailing.

G. Lake: You don’t have the publication?

T. Milo: I don’t have the publication myself. Dr. Wodka put it in the paper and made copies and mailed them.

G. Lake: Unfortunately without that notice we can’t be sure. Is the date of publication on that note that Dr. Wodka wrote?

M. Hunt: He printed it out the 10th but it doesn’t really say when it was published.

G. Lake: Mr. Barone as of right now we can’t prove that it was published in the paper.

G. Barone: Unfortunately what you need to do is reschedule them for another date and that they have to re-publish because the mailing was defective.

T. Milo: What do you mean by the mailing was defective?

G. Barone: Our code requires that in regards to Site Plan approval the mailings have to be sent by Certified Mailing.

MOTION to reschedule a PUBLIC HEARING for February 4, 2004 made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES

2. PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 P.M. - WISNER CORNERS - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Carpenter Avenue, Wisner Avenue, Fair Avenue (74-5-1) #062-003

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 8:20 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 17th day of December, 2003 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the application of P & B Wisner, LLC, 396 Mount Joy Road, Middletown, New York 10941 for approval of retail and office buildings on the corner of Carpenter and Wisner Avenue under Section 249-26 of the Zoning Law of the Town of Wallkill. All parties of interest will be heard at said time and place. S/Gary Lake, Chairman

G. Lake: Do you want to bring us up to date with a brief description of the project.

K. Rother: The applicant is proposing a Site Plan on approximately 2.4 acres in the Highway Commercial zone. It is located on Carpenter Avenue, Wisner Avenue and Fair Avenue. The proposed uses will be retail and office space. We discussed the landscaping along Carpenter Avenue. We also discussed sidewalks.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: After the Public.

P. Owen: After the Public.

R. Carr: I will wait.

G. Luenzmann: I will wait.

G. Monaco: I will wait.

T. Hamilton: After the Public.

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

D. Hendrickson: I just have a few questions. The property is right next door to me. I am questioning the screening. Is it going to be evergreens? Is it going to be a stockade fence? Also I’m curious about the lights. Are they going to be lit up all night or will they be drop lighting? I see it faces Wisner Avenue. I thought there was a minimum forty foot backyard. The drainage. I see a lot of fill going in there already. It doesn’t look like a clean fill. Will there be curbs and catch basins?

G. Lake: The fill is coming in on Wisner and Carpenter?

D. Hendrickson: Yes. There is a lot of fill coming in now. It doesn’t look like clean fill. It looks like a lot of rocks, concrete, etc. I don’t know how much fill is going in? I’m concerned about that. I’m also concerned about what uses will be put there. Is there going to be an all night bar, a strip joint?

G. Lake: Right now, we have office, warehousing and retail.

D. Hendrickson: I also will have problems with snow removal. I’m also concerned about the setbacks, the rear yard, etc.

G. Lake: Anybody else from the Public?

MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 8:25 P.M. made by R. Carr and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES

G. Lake: Do you have Dick’s comments?

K. Rother: Yes.

G. Lake: Let’s go through his comments.

K. Rother: Comment #1.Handicap sign by permit only is not a problem. Sidewalks are proposed along Wisner Avenue. We discussed sidewalks in the work shop about having sidewalks around the entire side. Based on conversations at the work shop, Mr. Getztesi and the Town representatives, we ended up with sidewalks only on Wisner Avenue. Fire Department. The Fire Chief of Mechanicstown was at the work shop. We haven’t received any comments from him since then. Detail of the grease trap is not a problem. Details of the detention pond is not a problem. Additional landscaping along Fair Avenue is no problem. Mr. McGoey does have our drainage report. Regarding the comments from the Public we propose a one hundred foot landscape buffer along the entire property line. We will plant evergreen trees which are very fast growing. As far as the rear yard because this property fronts on three streets, the front yard setback on all three of those streets, we have the option of where we want the side yard and the rear yard. We have shown the minimum setback dimension.

G. Lake: What do you have, twenty five?

K. Rother: There is a five foot sidewalk.

G. Lake: Will there be lighting on the back of that building?

K. Rother: We don’t have more than one foot candle showing beyond the property line. We don’t have any hours for lighting. We can discuss that.

G. Lake: The building sets back close to those five or six houses. I really think you have to make sure the lighting stays on your property. Can you reduce the lighting on the back? Dick, can you check that?

D. McGoey: I think they can reduce the number of fixtures.

K. Rother: I have no problem with that.

A. Dulgarian: I have a lot of problems with this. Technically they’re asking us to approve a generic building that we know nothing about. We don’t know if it’s going to be operated around the clock, storage, warehouse. I have no idea. At this point to include two generic buildings next to residential. I have a problem with that. We had something similar with the Shop Rite and the Senior Housing and we had a berm built there for added protection but I don’t know if you have enough width back there. I also would like to see some topography on this property as to what it is going to look like finished because they are adding a bunch of fill there and they are showing landscaping on Carpenter Avenue. I appreciate the sidewalks on Wisner Avenue. I agree we don’t need it on Carpenter Avenue. And lastly, I don’t like the plan at all at this point.

G. Lake: You have started on Carpenter Avenue. Have you contacted the County on that?

K. Rother: We have our approval. The grading is shown on sheet #2.

G. Lake: Anything else Mr. Dulgarian?

A. Dulgarian: No.

P. Owen: I also have difficulty with this project. Right now we don’t know what type of offices and we also don’t know what type of retail you are proposing. Also, the hours of operation for the project.

R. Carr: I would want to see more landscaping.

G. Luenzmann: I agree with the other Board members. It would be nice to have a more definitive idea of what the uses are and the hours of their operation. I do think it’s a good project.

G. Monaco: I share the same concerns.

T. Hamilton: I agree with all the other comments. Mr. Barbone, the corner lot?

G. Barone: Yes. The corner lot is set forth in the definition. Mr. Rother is correct. When the property abuts two or more streets, one of the remaining yards will be a side yard and the other will be the rear yard. It is up to the applicant to make that determination.

T. Hamilton: Where is that?

G. Barone: In the definition section.

T. Hamilton: The remaining two yards?

G. Barone: One shall be designated a side yard and the other shall be the rear yard. If you want, you can refer him to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation. That’s an option because you are uncomfortable with the way the code is written.

G. Lake: Did you way you wanted to answer some of their questions?

B. Getztesi: As you can see this operation is a family business between my wife and myself. We have had in the restaurant on the current property at one time it was a bar.

A. Dulgarian: How long have you owned the property?

B. Getztesi: We’ve owned the property since (not clear). We just purchased it from her mother. We’ve been working with her father with the parking lot for about twelve years. Since her mother passed away, we just wanted to get out of the parking business. Eating and drinking establishment. Right now there is a restaurant there. They will probably take a new space in the retail section. We are limited.

T. Hamilton: One question. Dick, that whole area is Highway Commercial?

K. Rother: Yes.

T. Hamilton: The houses behind here, that’s Highway Commercial?

K. Rother: Yes.

Mr. Getztesi: As far as the second building, the contractor or electrician wants to have an office and a place to store supplies and equipment. It could be a mason, a plumber, an electrician. That’s the kind of client we’re looking for. To have an office similar to what Mr. Simpson has at his place.

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

A. Dulgarian: I have a problem with the size of the impacts this may cause. I have a problem of not knowing more information. This is a generic plan. We don’t know what the hours of operations are going to be? What type of use is going to be there? Without knowing the type of use we don’t know what type of protection we may need for the neighbors. You have a couple of dumpsters along the back there probably within forty feet of the house.

P. Owen: I am concerned where the existing houses are.

K. Rother: It might help if you look at the location map. There will be a substantial buffer.

A. Dulgarian: You are only thirty feet from these houses.

Mr. Getztesi: Excuse me. Those houses were built prior to the ordinance.

G. Lake: Mr. Owen, anything else?

P. Owen: I think some other things can be done with it.

R. Carr: The driveway for the warehouse. All I see is that they will pull the truck here (not clear).

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: I have a concern about the dumpster location from the property line. Dick, did you see that?

D. McGoey: Yes I did.

T. Hamilton: Do they meet the setback requirement?

D. McGoey: An accessory structure has to be within five feet.

G. Lake: Let me ask you something. Do you want me to call the vote or table this and waive the sixty two days to give you more time?

K. Rother: I would like to get some clarification on the use. It’s not clear how we can tell you what we may be proposing when we’re not sure.

G. Lake: We would like to give you the opportunity to look at it further. There are a number of issues the Board has on this at the present time. What I’m asking at this point, do you want me to call the vote or do you want me to table it and have you waive the time frame?

K. Rother: If the Board is uncomfortable with it . . .

G. Lake: You have listened to the Board and their concerns.

K. Rother: I did.

G. Lake: Do you want to make the decision on behalf of your client?

K. Rother: To be honest with the Board, the size of the impacts, this is the first we are hearing about it.

G. Lake: I can go back through the Board and you can hear them again. The Public Hearing is closed. You don’t have to do that again.

T. Hamilton: Dick, have you seen the Highway Superintendent comments? The down stream drainage may not be adequate. Has that been changed?

D. McGoey: I don’t have a copy.

K. Rother: We will waive the sixty two day time frame.

MOTION to TABLE this application made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by G. Monaco.