G. Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
1. QUICKWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - (Sketch)
- Tower & Industrial Drive (41-1-101.12) #
CANCELLED.
2. LaVIERE - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - Seaman Road (7-1-10.6) #025-003
G.
Lake: Can you bring us up to date on this project?
D. Yanosh: This is in the RA zone owned by Mr. & Mrs. LaViere.
It’s a 4.74 acre lot that was subdivided back in 1991 with
an existing two story house on it where they live right now. The
house is too big for them and want a smaller home. It calls for
a flag lot off of Seaman Road to the back, 2.20 acres will be
the new lot #2 for a single family house and lot # the existing
house will have 2.74 acres. Lot #1 will have two hundred foot
frontage on Seaman Road and the flag lot in the back with a fifteen
foot strip all the way in the back in order to get two hundred
feet where the building will be put.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: We’re just setting the Public Hearing tonight?
I don’t have a problem tonight.
P.
Owen: Nothing.
R.
Carr: Nothing.
G.
Luenzmann: I have no problems.
T.
Hamilton: Nothing right now.
P.
Owen: I just have one question. Why did you make the line going
that way?
D.
Yanosh: In order to get two acres.
G.
Lake: This has to go to the Health Department?
D.
Yanosh: Yes. The original Troncone subdivision was in the Health
Department years ago. The lot here of Troncone right behind us
was subdivided off about two or three years ago.
We do have feedback that it was in the Health Department. Once
it goes, you have to repeat it.
MOTION
to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for March 3, 2004 made by G. Luenzmann
and seconded by P. Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
3. ALTA EAST - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Route 302 &
Route 17M (22-3-4.22) #088-003
J.
O’Rourke: I am with Lanc & Tully Engineering. This is
basically a twenty five acre piece on Route 302 adjacent to the
off-ramp of the quickway. We’re proposing two lots. The
front portion of about three acres would be a convenience store/gas
station run by Alta East. The remaining back portion would be
Regional Trucking Sales and Service. The back portion of the lot
has about thirteen acres of State wetlands that has been delineated
and approved by the State and we’ve added the one hundred
foot buffer and we’re not doing any disturbance in that
area. Basically we’re here this evening to get your general
feelings of the layout and request a denial so we can go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for two reasons. One is the canopy in
the front yard and the second would be the parking and an access
way within the landscaped buffer zone which is along the off-ramp
of the quickway. In addition, we’re proposing one access
point and that’s actually based on the Department of Transportation
requirements. We approached them last year. They reviewed it.
When they purchased the right-of-way ramp back in 1932 they put
a restriction on it that no access point from this lot could be
conducted within a certain area which leaves us about fifty feet
or a little bit more for an access point. They are saying that
we are allowed one access point due to the location of the off-ramp.
A.
Dulgarian: But you’re limited to how far away that has to
be from the ramp?
J.
O’Rourke: Yes. It has to be basically beyond that catch
basin to the end of the property line. We are limited to that
area for access only.
T.
Hamilton: Does that take into consideration the new interstate
highway?
J.
O’Rourke: Yes. We basically had to do a lot of research
with the Department of Transportation and go through all the records
and find it.
G.
Lake: Okay, so you’ve already done that?
J. O’Rourke: Yes.
G.
Lake: And you’ve already done the research?
J.
O’Rourke: Yes.
G.
Lake: On I-86 that they might not re-configurate anything here?
J.
O’Rourke: No, that would affect our property.
G.
Lake: Okay.
J.
O’Rourke: The Department of Transportation has already reviewed
this both here in Middletown and in the regional office in Poughkeepsie.
G.
Lake: I think we would like to get a letter then from them on
that then.
J.
O’Rourke: Yes. The other point that we’re pursuing
is an existing twelve inch water main across the street. Across
the street is in the water district, this parcel is not within
the water district. We could have on-site wells but because of
fire fighting capacity and insurance and a twelve inch water line
is right there we will approach the Town Board to expand the district
in this area. We’ve spoken to Mr. Smith and technically
he has no concerns with it.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board. I think we looked at something
like this about a year ago.
A.
Dulgarian: Where is the front of the building on the truck repair?
J.
O’Rourke: Where is the front going to face?
A.
Dulgarian: Yes.
J.
O’Rourke: It’s right here. The front would face Route
302. Again, if you remember, it shows here a large berm between
the ramp and our property. You would see the top of the buildings,
but that’s it. We approached the Department of Transportation
to see if we could knock that berm out and they will not allow
us to do any grading in their right-of-way.
G.
Lake: Is this going to be a repair shop or a dealership?
J. O’Rourke: Sales and service.
G.
Lake: So, they will only be selling new trucks?
J.
O’Rourke: That’s correct. That’s what he had
stated, sales and service.
G.
Lake: Does that change anything Dick on the property?
D.
McGoey: No. The only question I had was whether they were going
to have eating and drinking in the convenience store.
J.
O’Rourke: We will revise that. Actually the building size
will be slightly modified. We will be proposing a small eating.
We will revise the parking accordingly.
G.
Lake: Let me go back to the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: Signage. Is it one sign for both uses. One location
for the sign. Is that how it’s going to be? Have you thought
about that?
J.
O’Rourke: I don’t think they really determinated signage.
Regional Trucking I would propose to have one sign up here. I’m
sure about the convenience store/gas station.
A.
Dulgarian: Because of the location, I really don’t have
a problem with this but when it comes back and addressed I think
we’re really going to have some landscaping out there because
of where it is and they look like they have enough room.
P.
Owen: What was here before us on this, was it a gas station or
something else?
J.
O’Rourke: No. We’ve only been here with the convenience
store/gas station. I believe we were at a work session.
P.
Owen: I remember seeing something for this location. I don’t
remember exactly what it was.
R.
Carr: I’m just thinking about it in terms of having a gas
station there with the flow of traffic. On the other hand, over
the years this has been a heavy intersection. That would be a
concern that I would want addressed is the traffic impact.
G. Luenzmann: I think it’s a good location for the type
of buildings that you want to put up. I do remember something
in the past about a similar type of operation. The only problem
I see is when people come off to get here and they want to swing
back on, this is not a convenient place. You’re going to
have to figure out a good traffic flow. There is a certain amount
of limitation there.
J.
O’Rourke: You’re right. It’s an unusual interchange.
I know the Department of Transportation will certainly review
that and we could certainly offer to put signage to direct the
traffic.
T.
Hamilton: Are you looking to the Town Board to extend the water
district?
J.
O’Rourke: Yes.
T.
Hamilton: I have a map from a planner that shows that side of
the street is in the district.
J.
O’Rourke: That would be great if it is. We were informed
that the water district was only on one side of the street but
not on the other one.
G.
Lake: Mr. Smith would be able to tell you that.
J.
O’Rourke: I will call Mr. Smith and confirm before I go
to the Town Board. If we can avoid that it would certainly make
our lives easier.
G.
Lake: The Fire Department if you get in the water and sewer district,
they are requesting that you move the hydrant back one aisle and
maybe another one up by the gas station. I don’t think it’s
a big deal. The re-configurement of the bridge does seem to be
a problem. I think you may need traffic to look at it in view
of your project.
J.
O’Rourke: Certainly.
G.
Lake: This is only here for sketch.
D.
McGoey: They want to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
G.
Lake: For the canopy, and what else do you need?
J.
O’Rourke: The parking in the rear is in the fifty foot buffer
area and the driveway.
G. Lake: You have Dick’s comments then.
A.
Dulgarian: We don’t really have to take a vote on that.
MOTION
made to refer the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals made
by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
4. CIESLEWITZ - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION - Hufcut Road (12-1-24.22) #086-003
D.
Yanosh: I am the surveyor for the project. The property is owned
by Mr. Cieslewitz Jr. He bought the Hufcut farm a couple of years
ago. I did a lot line change up here in the front where the Hufcut
lot is, lot #24.21. It was done a couple of years ago. It’s
a three lot subdivision. He has a buyer would likes this back
piece in here. They mine some gravel out of there the last couple
of years. There is an existing driveway that goes back there.
If you want to drive back in there you can see what it looks like.
It’s very secluded and a very quiet area behind the other
lots back here that front on Lybolt Road. It’s a total of
51.9 acres. Our lot would be 2.8 acres. There is a twenty five
foot access road coming in to it. At the work session one of Dick’s
comments was what happens if Mr. Cieslewitz sells the rest of
the property and needed access roads from lot #1 to lot #3? We
could just subdivide the whole thing and make a new loop road
that goes across. There is a wet area that I will locate if everything
is okay today on lot #3 which borders the road coming in. It might
make it difficult to loop the road but we will show that. I have
a note on the plan that if either Mr. Cieslewitz or who ever buys
lots #1 and #2 or lot #1 and #3 wants to subdivide later on, they
would put a road across the back of this property to the middle
crossing that driveway if the owner of lot #2 would relinquish
his rights to that driveway or what ever road he puts in.
G. Lake: Let me go through the Board. This is for sketch only.
A.
Dulgarian: I don’t like it. For me, approving a plan in
this form would be poor planning. We don’t really divide
up properties like that. I think this would be a flag layout up
to a flag lot. With all due respect to Mr. Yanosh, I would like
to see something different.
P.
Owen: I don’t really like it either.
R.
Carr: Just a couple of questions. The driveway is twenty five
feet wide?
D.
Yanosh: Yes. I can make it bigger. If you drove in right now,
you can drive between the metal shed and the barn that’s
right there come down the hill. Trucks were going in and out of
there. The soils 81, 82 soils. It does get wet back there. You
can take a ride down in there to the left of the road going in,
to the little shed, there is a wet area there, Army Corps.
G.
Luenzmann: I normally don’t have a problem with flag lots
because I realize that a lot of people like to be in the back
and out of the way and separated by the distance from the road.
I really don’t go for this plan. Right now there is all
one piece of property, correct?
D.
Yanosh: Correct.
G.
Luenzmann: I know they have a buyer for this piece and this is
what they want. Looking into the future how this is going to flow
a year down the road is impossible to realize. I feel this plan
is not acceptable.
T.
Hamilton: I don’t care for the layout sticking that piece
in dead center. What about the agricultural notification?
A.
Dulgarian: I’m not going to tell you how to plan but I just
don’t like this one.
G.
Lake: You have Dick’s comments and the Board’s comments.
Also, I did talk to Mr. Lippert. He does have concerns about site
distance for actual speed. I think that detail would have to work
out. You’ve heard the Board. I think the Board wants to
see something different.
MOTION
to TABLE for further review made by A. Dulgarian and seconded
by G. Luenzmann.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
5. MILLER - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION - Van Duzer Road (54-1-2.2 &
35.13) #087-003
D.
Yanosh: This is lands of George E. Miller & Sons Incorporated.
We are in the RA zone bordered by Van Duzer Road and Stivers Road.
It does encompass two tax map parcels. For some reason over the
years Stivers Road was re-built and built again however it was
created. It really created a natural subdivision in that triangular
piece that’s below lot #3. We want to clear that all up
and make Stivers Road a natural boundary. Van Duzer Road is a
natural boundary. The existing acreage is almost eighteen acres
together. It goes up to a pretty steep hill in the back on lot
#3. There is a little road that goes up there now but it’s
too steep to use as a driveway. The proposal is for three lots.
Page two has a larger scale. We meet the current zoning with the
soils. Three acres is what we need for lot #1 and lot #2. The
Highway Superintendent also had some comment on this about site
distances. I guess I have to meet with him and perhaps adjust
some lot lines to get them into a better spot. The house on lot
#3 does set back. It’s about almost eight hundred feet off
the road. It’s a nice piece of property.
A.
Dulgarian: Is there something on this driveway #3 that he would
have to meet?
D.
Yanosh: On sheet #3 we have profiles. It’s twelve percent,
ten percent, and seven percent. I can do something with some of
the driveways to put them in different spots to get better site
distance. Van Duzer Road was re-built by the Town a couple of
years ago.
G.
Lake: Didn’t they do Stivers Road also?
D. Yanosh: Yes, they did that one also. We still have access off
of Stivers Road. If you drive up Stivers, it’s a very steep
bank right in here.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: This plan looks pretty good for sketch. The lot sizes
are good. The setbacks are good. I really don’t have a problem
as look as Dick’s technical issues are complied.
P.
Owen: I think the layout is pretty good.
R.
Carr: I don’t have anything.
G.
Luenzmann: The only question I have is about the house that is
really up by eighty or ninety feet
Next
Page
