J. Van Tuyl: To get idea of depths looking sideway here is side elevation (drawing)

J. O’Connell: This rendering is for side elevation with deck and 34 feet to property line and allowance we are asking for. With trees it is more realistic.

J. Van Tuyl: There is existing woods.

J. O’Connell: This is 16 feet into the 50 feet off set line (drawing).

Mr. Smith: Deck into the trees?

J. O’Connell: You can’t see ridge line. It shows on this drawing (drawing). Civil engineer got wooded area from a topo / arial and is dense in dark green area.

Mr. Owen: How wide is dark green?

J. O’Connell: From our line to existing is 52 feet and in back up to 340 feet and another 50 feet behind it.

Mr. Oster: Your line is straight line?

Mr. O’Connell: Yes. We don’t have much wooded area existing on ours. There are trees but not as dense. Not shows if not sure.

Mr. Owen: What people can cut – is there a restriction?

J. O’Connell: No, they take care of what is in their walls we take care of the grounds.

J. Van Tuyl: We want to have natural screening as part of site land scape also. Again, we are talking between patio and a deck – add above lower level a deck because of topo an amenity purchases would want. We want to work with club and members .

4th: Height – 2 factors that bring request about – nice steep roof lines important part of architecture and lead to minor variances of 4 foot not significant, in up-hill substantial to 12 feet because quirk in Code side measured closest to street and measure on that side not average all 4 sides. Drawing that show height variances (map) shown on various places on the site. The 2 buildings are affected are in center of site and not visible from point outside the parameter.

J. O Connell: 2 interior condo buildings requested by the PB.

J. Van Tuyl: We reviewed all heighst with Jay McClintock.

Mr. Owen: Why so much difference between up- and down- hill?

J. O’Connell: Measure differently. If enter back side versus front.

Mr. Owen: Someone else we have it from the lowest to highest and not deal with it here.

J. Van Tuyl: That is the difference as to were Code has us measure height.

5th Facing elevations of townhouse buildings. Have several situations where up hill face down hill and twice the height of building is not needed. From 7 ft and 14ft and 15ft in different areas. Reviewed by Jay McClintock with no objections to that.

6th last group of interpretations is zone regulations regarding cluster groupings of single family homes. We submit the site plan does not show separate cluster homes. Its really one whole development with wandering street scape and curve line interests. No bubbles clusters. We ask the Board for interpretation of the site plan and that it does not have separate groupings and code does not apply.

Two (2) other interpretation: 1) 2 clusters one going this way Fairway drive and Overlook Drive. Artificial distinction because of roads and if that is interpretation the number of units in cluster and variance for 10 max. 2) plausible interpretation is a number of several cluster broken up by street scape by islands. Hyper technical interpretation perhaps. If that is the case variance from 50 feet.

Summary of variances requested.

Mr. Smith: Any questions from the Board? This is quite extensive and may be continued to October.

Mr. Owen: I would like to hear what the public has to say.

Mr. Smith: Some variances are substantial but it is a beautiful project. Want to make sure each unit is considered properly.

Mr. Mattatall: Viewing this as one single development and don’t want to go crazy with cluster issue. But asking for lot of variance - many as individuals would be denied out there. General impact with some of these things here. What you are looking at is you have design with need for variances. You could design without the need for so many variances. Why not do it differently would have to be explained. People are looking at each other (on the site) and variances have impact on outside community.

Mr. Smith: Any questions from the Public?

Mr. Smith: Is this a committee from OC Golf Course?

Tom Buckheit, President: As stated, I am president for this calendar year and you say this will not be over tonight.

We are getting the info as you are. We have concerns on set backs for decks reduced for building. There may not be enough area to deal with grading and space is needed for drainage and concern is the area (map) water quality basins – not sure what they are and significant drainage into our 15th fairway – will they be stagnate ponds?

J. O’Connell: William Dodge of the Chazen Company can speak better to that.

W. Dodge: I understand it drains from ridge line on 84 and Fairway Drive intercepts a lot of that and drains it to the south detention basin. Large drain proposed to address increase in run off. That discharge will go to existing stream through your property. Attenuation of peak discharges after development not more than before.

T. Buckheit: Will it be stagnant along 15th fairway?

W. Dodge: Some storm water down hill form the road, roof runoff and so forth. Designed to keep for extended time and natural drainage and not hold for a long duration of time.

T. Buckheit: What about mosquitos?

W. Dodge: It could be there a couple of days.

T. Buckheit: 40-50k people walk up there and West Nile Virus is a concern.

There is a concern where the decks come out narrowest to our fairway and as Mrs. Thompson its nice when leaves are on the tree – a 16 foot deck people look at, don’t know if accurate for distance, not adequate distance for errant golf ball into the decks. The o

The other concern with elevations – 16 feet or 12 feet elevations – how increase ridge line. Is whole ridge line scattered with roof tops as opposed to natural wood line.

J. O Connell: Highest roof line (drawing).

W. Dodge: What are the elevations to visual aspect of looking upon the ridge.

J. O’Connell: In retrospect standing there –

J. Van Tuyl: We can sketch that out.

T. Buckheit: We don’t want to see variances issued until see grading and drainage not have negative impact to the course. The game of golf is visual appreciation of natural surroundings and roof lines impact that. 2 things impact us – 1 set back 50 feet set back for decks; 2 increase height of roof lines.

J. O’Connell: EAF report has storm water and with PB and available for public view. Working with Dick McGoey.

(W. Dodge handed T. Buckheit a full document.)

J. Van Tuyl: I think that we see it as great privilege to come into Wallkill and MGD doing development in various places and is first rate high-end project and not come in other than a good neighbor and valid questions and figure what look without leaves on trees or not encourage mosquitoes. We can take your number and suggest time to formally talk to you and address the issues and get prospective drawing of view and what we are asking you to agree to.

Mr. Smith: Does anyone else have a question or comment?

Mr. Smith: I appreciate your speaking on behalf of the golf club. They are the neighbor.

Mr. Kelly: (76 highland Avenue): We want to know if this property is in water district and sewer?

Mr. Smith: Yes. This is a condo development not talking lots.

Mr. Kelly: Waste storm sewers is addressed.

Mrs. Thompson: Sewer district – hooked in to Wallkill?

J. Van Tuyl: Yes.

Mrs. Thompson: Last proposal for this there was a problem.

J. Van Tuyl: We are working with the Town engineer to address that.

J. Van Tuyl: Take to heart all the questions here tonight.

Mr. Smith: After hearing the presentation tonight and some members have concerns with roof heights, we would like to go back out there and examine the property again.

Mr. Smith: Any other comments or questions?

Mr. Smith: We have a lot to absorb. This will be continued to October.

J. Van Tuyl: As Robet Adamo suggested, we will be willing to have the Board meet us and show locations and realistic conditions.

Mr. Oster: The only comment from your comments last month by Mr. Dodge is I though you had communications with/from the golf course. Has there not been a public hearing at the PB?

J. Van Tuyl: Phil Evans from the applicant spoke to someone from the golf course – Brian Egan and sent reduced copies of drawing.

W. Dodge: We got them on Thursday (9/4).

J. Van Tuyl: And those conversations have taken place. We endorse full disclosure 2nd PH at the PB and at last meeting formally referred the variances to you for feed back and said like feed back during its public hearing process. They will open and continue.

Mr. Smith: We expect questions. It is a beautiful project and some variance are substantial and some set backs - especially the elevations on the roof are to be looked at closely.

Mr. Oster: In case I miss the public hearings at the Planning Board, will there be a super on site for the home owners association?

Robert Odomo: We work with company on other projects with Westchester Management in Westchester and issue of on site super has not been determined yet.

Mr. Smith: Someone local if not on site?

Mr. Odomo: Some from the company meets with the Board monthly. Not necessarily someone there 8-5 every day.

J. Van Tuyl: Any other questions on the home owners association to be brought up at the Planning Baord?

Mr. Smith: No.

Mrs. Thompson: Rich Jones fax information and to whom?

J. O’Connell: He was satisfied with the plan and offered product diversity and like to see more and he was did accept plan and comfortable and fax us and ZBA and Planning Board and we did not get it.

J. Van Tuyl: No harm done as it is continued. Any questions from you to us we want to get info to you through secretary or the chair.

Mr. Smith: Who easiest to reach and where?

J. Van Tuyl: Contact J. O’Connell.

Mr. Smith: The Public Hearing will remain open to the October 20, 2003 meeting.

MEETING CLOSE:

Mr. Smith: There being no further items to be presented to the Board, I Move to close the Meeting at 10:12 PM; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.

TOWN OF WALLKILL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

Decision Sheet

Henry Lust Jr. (Nancy Zwart): Request for a variance of 249-20-D (front yard set back) from 35 to 20.5 feet for addition of a 4 foot deck; Property located at 26 Turfler Terrace (SECTION 16 BLOCK 6 LOT 8); Designated R-2.

DECISION: Variance granted.

Harold & Kathleen Card: Request for a variance of 249-20-D (lot width) from 200 ft 158.2; Property located at East side of Van Burenville Road (SECTION 36 BLOCK 1 LOT 92.2); Designated R-2.

DECISION: Variance denied.
Berbro Management
(Jack Antunes): Request for a variance of 249-22-D (lot width, area and side yard):
1) front yard from 35 ft to 25 ft;
2) area from 12,500 to 6,250 sq/ft;
3) side yard from 15ft to 10ft;
4) 2 side yards from to 30ft to 20ft;
Property located at 182 Brookline Avenue
(SEC 76 BLOCK 7 LOT 10); Designated R1.

DECISION: Variances denied.

Ted Henderson: Request for a variance of 249-19-D-1 (side yard and lot width reduction):
1) lot area from 2 acres to .46 acres;
2) lot width from 200ft to 65ft;
3) side yard from 40ft to 18ft;
4) 2 side yards from 100ft to 36ft;
Property located at 180 Derby Road;
(SEC 21 LOT 1 LOT 38.1); Designated RA

DECISION: Variances granted.

Theodore Capozzoli: Request for a variance of 249-19-D (side yard reduction) from 100ft to 78ft; Property located at 276 Derby Road (SEC 21 BLOCK 1 LOT 41.21); Designated RA.

DECISION: Variance denied.

MGD Development Group
(Clubside Investors, LLC): Continue on October 20, 2003.