which
was raised as an issue. The study is on file at the Town and is
part of this record. I think that covers the answers.
G.
Lake: Okay. On Dick's comments, he already answered the one. He
gave me the certificate.
D. McGoey: What was the date?
G.
Lake: August 16, 2002. The rest of Dick's comments, do you want
to go through them?
L.
Wolinsky: Sure. There are several items here that refer to SEQRA
and SEQRA compliance. We have done. This all has to be viewed
obviously in the context of this is not
although legally this is a new application it really is more of
a reinstatement of approvals. We have done everything the same
as was previously approved by the Planning Board. At the time
of the original approval there was a Negative Declaration adopt
by the Planning Board. What we've done is we've looked at that
information to make sure that the information was up to date and
not stale and we've submitted updates as an addendum to the Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) and again what we've done so far and what
we believe covers all the issues are the traffic study, the drainage
report and we've had a wetlands analysis done as well to confirm
that we're okay with regard to that. That basically accounts for
the various SEQRA issues. Items #2, #3, #4, #5, I would characterize
them as technical issues that we would certainly comply with.
They're not of any major significance. Item #6 raises the issue
of the wetlands. I have with me our wetlands expert who is prepared
to address the analysis that he undertook. A letter was provided
to you. It had a conclusion that we're not encroaching on any
jurisdictional wetland areas.
D.
McGoey: What we need to see is a wetlands delineation map. If
he could take the information that he retained on the site, outline
the limits of the wetland which he hasn't given to me to my knowledge
to show how it impacts the site.
L.
Wolinsky: I'm going to turn it over to him because my understanding
and I might be wrong is that there are no wetlands on the site.
So there is nothing to map. There's a stream that runs through
the site. There are some isolated upland area that are non-jurisdictional
but there are no regulated corps of wetlands. On that issue, that's
something that's our risk. We're not looking to invite an enforcement
action down the road here.
Dr.
Crow: I received my undergraduate degree in 1964 in Biology, Chemistry
and Mathematics. My PhD was finished in 1968 and my subject discipline
was about the wetlands. Henceforth I've published the major publication
and the latest was published by the National Academy of Science.
From that publication the national delineation methodology was
developed. I've produced dozens of papers, hundreds of conference
speeches and I'm still doing research for the government. I also
teach the subject.
L. Wolinsky: Would you please set forth why it is you believe
there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the property?
Dr.
Crow: In the corner of the property there is a stream. It is an
open water feature. There are a couple of minor features offsetting
the stream that there is a very small pond and a couple of other
isolated spots. Until about a year or so ago the corps had regulated
those. It was determined that their reach was too far by the courts
and these isolated spots as described here were found to not be
regulated. The Army Corps of Engineers no longer takes care of
jurisdiction of these features. They're very tiny.
D.
McGoey: Do you have a problem showing those on the plan for us
so we can look at them? You did the work. I think it's important
for the Planning Board to be able to look at where these wetland
areas are and the size of them and seeing the significance in
size. If you've done all this work it shouldn't be a big problem
showing them.
Dr.
Crow: I didn't flag them because of the fact that they weren't
jurisdictional. If I had thought that they would be regulated,
if they were a consequence, I would have flagged them. This is
basically like a lot of them. We just make a note, write a letter
and walk away.
D.
McGoey: I'm going to suggest that we need to have you show the
approximate areas. We can do a field walk ourselves and if we
need more information. If you could show them in the approximate
areas if would be helpful to us to know where they are on the
site and to take a look at them. I'm not questioning your ability
or questioning whether you're right or wrong but it's something
I think the Board should look at.
L.
Wolinsky: We will do that. We hire an expert and the expert tells
us there's no wetlands on the property for the following reasons.
We take that, we supply the expert testimony to the Board and
we would hope that the Board would rely on that. What we're faced
in doing now is having to go out there, spend the time and effort
to flag them. However, since we have to address and meet with
the Fire Department, we will go ahead and do that. As far as the
other comments in Dick's letter I think we've addressed them all.
D.
McGoey: Did you prepare any kind of a scope of your Part III?
L.
Wolinsky: The areas of concern or of issue that we looked at are
the drainage, traffic. We did aesthetics for the design of the
building. We also did wetlands. Those were out of our work shop
sessions. Those were the scope that had arisen and I think that's
a fair scope of the issues that need to be addressed. We believe
we have addressed them.
D. McGoey: The only thing I would add would be soil erosion control
and water and sewer issues.
T.
DePew: We've supplied them.
D.
McGoey: If the Board has any other issues add them.
G.
Lake: I will go through the Board.
P.
Owen: Nothing.
R.
Carr: Nothing.
G.
Monaco: No.
A.
Dulgarian: Carol, did we send out information to the Middletown
School Board?
C.
Kelly: No. We don't do that. They get sent a Planning Board agenda.
A.
Dulgarian: It's disappointing to me that no one responded or showed
some interest in something that will have an impact. The Orange
& Rockland right-of-way, that's two hundred fifty six feet
on the . . .
R.
J. Smith: One hundred fifty feet all the way around.
A.
Dulgarian: This one hundred fifty feet, you are not allowed to
do anything there or what's the story?
T.
DePew: Basically we leave the buffer. We had gotten permission
recently to go in there and re-grade this slightly in the detention
pond area.
A.
Dulgarian: The other thing is, there will be no future building
in that and are you allowed to put extra planting in there because
it is a perfect natural buffer. I see you have two or three trees
in there now.
R.
J. Smith: We have to be careful because of the electrical wires.
A.
Dulgarian: Yes, but one hundred fifty feet, what can they be,
fifty feet?
T. DePew: They pretty much removed the vegetation through here
under the maintenance.
G.
Lake: Orange & Rockland does?
T.
DePew: Yes.
A.
Dulgarian: My other concern is that on the Canterbury Knolls side,
I would like to get the rest of the Board's on that. I see there's
a lot of pines here. In different areas we've required different
things. I think there should be a little more privacy between
the two.
G.
Lake: I thought they said they were going to be hardwoods and
pines.
A.
Dulgarian: Yes, that's what the planting shows but I know we've
done different creative things.
G.
Lake: I would rather see thicker trees than pines.
A.
Dulgarian: The other thing is in the past when we've had projects
like this the buildings face in and we're looking at the rear
of the building on four of these buildings. I would like to know
what the rear of those buildings are going to look like and if
you are going to do stockade fences for each backyard and all
of that where it just becomes unattractive from the road.
G.
Lake: Good comments.
L.
Wolinsky: What I have here essentially to sum up so you can move
forward efficiently because we have the fire department comments,
Dick's technical comments. We're going to finish off the Part
III Environmental Assessment Form and as part of that we're going
to address the buffer issues that have been raised.
G.
Lake: And the aesthetics of the back.
L.
Wolinsky: Yes. The only thing I want to say for the record in
conclusion is that as you're all aware we want this approval reinstated.
This is a reinstatement and not an application from scratch as
is typical. And because of that our client has a time schedule
that needs to emphasize getting hopefully through this all which
I think we can do by the end of the year so we can get our ground
broken.
G. Lake: It's all going to be in your call. You get the work done
and get it back and we will put you back on.
L.
Wolinsky: Okay.
G.
Lake: But it is a new application, it's not a reinstatement. It
has been gone for ten years.
L.
Wolinsky: I understand that but the zoning hasn't changed. We're
back with the same project.
G.
Lake: We acknowledge that but it is a new application and we're
going to go through all the steps.
L
Wolinsky: Fine.
D.
McGoey: Gary, you should also request a waiver of the sixty two
day time frame.
G.
Lake: Do we do it now?
D.
McGoey: You can put it in the record now.
G.
Lake: Do you waive the sixty two day time frame?
L.
Wolinsky: Yes.
MOTION
for intent to become LEAD AGENCY made by A. Dulgarian and seconded
by G. Monaco.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion carried. 5 AYES
1. WAL-MART DISTRIBUTION CENTER - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT
- Route 17/Route 17K (1-1-66, 67.1, 44, 43, 1.2, 2.222) #057-002
G.
Connor: I was here a few weeks ago to initiate the SEQRA process
and I'm here tonight for the continuation of that process.
G.
Lake: Dick, do we need him to give us a . . .
D.
McGoey: I don't think it's required. We just have to know what
the date was, when it was mailed.
G.
Connor: Mailing of what?
D.
McGoey: The mailing of the notice of intent to become Lead Agency.
G.
Lake: I will go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: No.
P.
Owen: No comments.
G.
Monaco: None.
G.
Lake: Do you have Dick's comments? This is only to accept Lead
Agency. That's all we're doing tonight.
D.
McGoey: Yes. We should also basically adopt scoping and I've given
each of you a copy of the scope and check list which is a fairly
comprehensive list of items. I've left off such things as agricultural
resources because there are no agricultural uses on the property.
I've left off demographic information. It just isn't pertinent
to the applicant. Those are essentially all I've left off the
list unless the applicant has a problem with what we scoped. I
will just ask the Board to accept the scoping after they adopt
Lead Agency.
G.
Connor: I don't think so. You did receive my fax yesterday?
D.
McGoey: Yes. Your list was pretty consistent with ours. After
you adopt Lead Agency then you can adopt the scoping.
MOTION to adopt LEAD AGENCY made by P. Owen and seconded by A.
Dulgarian.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion
carried. 5 AYES
MOTION
to accept the SCOPING made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P.
Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion
carried. 5 AYES
MOTION
for a POSITIVE DECLARATION made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by
P. Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
Motion
carried. 5 AYES
2. CHARLIE BROWN'S - SITE PLAN REVISION - Schutt Road (50-2-58)
#068-002
R.
Chmiel: I'm Vice President of construction for Charlie Brown's
Restaurant. What I'm here for is an application proposing outside
dining on our existing restaurant. The existing restaurant was
previously approved for seven thousand square feet. The proposed
dining I'm proposing fits into the original seven thousand square
feet from the original Site Plan approval. The site plans were
updated to show the outside dining with the amount of seating
on it already.
G.
Lake: Do you have Dick's comments?
R.
Chmiel: Yes I do.
G.
Lake: Do you have any problems with any of them?
R.
Chmiel: No I don't.
A.
Dulgarian: My question is this outdoor seating, outdoor dining
area is currently used for what now? Is that where the people
wait to get in?
R.
Chmiel: If you look at the building, it's to the right hand side.
A.
Dulgarian: I will get right to the point. My concern is where
people wait to get in, you're still going to have a spot and not
be standing in the parking lot as opposed to where people normally
wait now, that's going to be taking that area.
R.
Chmiel: Yes it is.
A.
Dulgarian: So the people that are waiting to get in where are
they going to sit in their cars or sit in stand on the lot or
something?
R.
Chmiel: They will have to stand inside. I know it's fortunate
we're very busy.
A. Dulgarian: I just happen to know that's the situation with
every restaurant in Town on a Friday and Saturday night and I
think that should be taken into consideration. I've never been
in this particular restaurant and I don't know if there is room
for them to wait inside. I don't know. I just think that's something
we need to address. If that's the area they were waiting in to
get in and we're going to throw twenty chairs out there for seating
I think that actual amount of space should be put somewhere else.
G.
Lake: I think those twenty seats are out there now, aren't they?
R.
Chmiel: Yes they are.
G.
Lake: They're there.
A.
Dulgarian: Are they just waiting out there?
G.
Lake: I think they're eating out there.
R.
Chmiel: No we're not.
G.
Lake: No, they are just there?
R.
Chmiel: Yes because we don't have a liquor license for anything
out there either. That's all part of this application.
A.
Dulgarian: That's just my concern.
Next
Page
