1 1 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 5 THE POLO CLUB (2006-09) 6 Route 300 7 Section 39; Block 1; Lots 1, 2.12 & 78.1 R-3 Zone 8 -------------------------X 9 PUBLIC HEARING 10 D.E.I.S. & SITE PLAN 11 12 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 15 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH 17 EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS 20 PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 KENNETH WERSTED 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: ROSS WINGLOVITZ 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 25 (845)895-3018 THE POLO CLUB CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the Town of Newburgh Planning Board meeting of the 20th of September. At this time we'll call the meeting to order with a roll call vote. MR. BROWNE: Present. MR. MENNERICH: Present. MR. O'DONNELL: Present. MR. PROFACI: Here. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself present. The Planning Board has experts that provide input and advice to the Planning Board in reaching various SEQRA determinations. I ask that they introduce themselves at this time. MR. DONNELLY: Michael Donnelly, Planning Board Attorney. MR. HINES: Pat Hines with McGoey, Hauser & Edsall, Consulting Engineers. MR. COCKS: Bryant Cocks, Garling Associates, Planning Consultants. MS. ARENT: Karen Arent, Landscape Architectural Consultant. MR. WERSTED: Ken Wersted, Creighton, Manning Engineering, Traffic Consultant. THE POLO CLUB CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. At this time I'd like to turn the meeting over to Joe Profaci. MR. PROFACI: All stand please to salute the flag. (Pledge of Allegiance.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The first item of business we have is The Polo Club. It's a public hearing for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a site plan. It's located on Route 300 and the property is zoned R-3. It's being represented by Ross Winglovitz of Engineering Properties. At this time I'll ask Mr. Mennerich to read the notice of hearing. MR. MENNERICH: "Notice of hearing, Town of Newburgh Planning Board. Please take notice that the Planning Board of the Town of Newburgh, Orange County, New York will hold a public hearing pursuant to the Municipal Code of the Town of Newburgh, Chapter 185-57 Section K, Section 274 and 6 NYCRR Part 617 SEQRA on the application of The Polo Club for a site plan and completed Draft Environmental Impact Statement. THE POLO CLUB The project site is located off of Route 300 in the Town of Newburgh, designated on Town tax map as Section 39; Block 1; Lots 1, 2.12 and 78.1. The public hearing will be held on the 20th day of September 2007 at the Town of Newburgh Town Hall, 1496 New York State Route 300, Newburgh, New York at 7:00 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard regarding the site plan proposal and contents of the D.E.I.S. A description of the project is provided below. Project description: The site is proposed for 133 multi-family units amongst 35 buildings. These buildings will be a mix of three, four and five-unit buildings. The Polo Club utilizes portions of the three tax lots and will include a lot line change as well as site plan approval. The project will be spread out over approximately 38 acres all located within the R-3 zone where multiple-family units are a permitted use at the rate of 6 units per acre. Utilizing net acreage the property has a potential build out of 178 units. The Army Corp wetlands have been delineated and a jurisdictional determination has been received. THE POLO CLUB There are three stormwater management ponds on site, Army Corp mitigation areas along with a clubhouse, tennis and basketball court and playground. Sewer lines are to be extended along Route 300 to accommodate the site and the Driscoll Subdivision across Route 300. Copies of the subdivision plans and D.E.I.S. can be reviewed at the Planning Board office, Newburgh Free Library and are available on-line at www.TOWNOFNEWBURGH.org or www.EPPC.cc. The public hearing may be closed or continued in the Planning Board's discretion. Written comments regarding the D.E.I.S. will be received ten days after the close of the hearing. By order of the Planning Board of the Town of Newburgh. John P. Ewasutyn, Chairman, Planning Board Town of Newburgh. Dated August 15, 2007." CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you, Mr. Mennerich. Dina Haines. MS. HAINES: The notice of hearing was published in The Sentinel on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 and in The Mid-Hudson Times on Wednesday, September 5, 2007. The applicant's THE POLO CLUB representative sent out fourteen registered letters, eleven were returned. The publications and mailings are all in order. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. At this time I'd like to turn to Mike Donnelly, the Planning Board Attorney, to explain to the public the meaning and purpose of this hearing, where we are in the SEQRA process. Mike Donnelly, please. MR. DONNELLY: As you heard from the Chairman as well as from the reading of the notice, the purpose of this evening's hearing is twofold. It's a hearing on the site plan application that will be described to you in a moment. Although the hearing notice listed 133 residential units and mentioned the potential for 178, the project size at this point is down to 126 units. The E.I.S. actually studied a higher number than the current proposal. The site plan is the proposal on that board. It is the layout of the units, the various improvements that go with it that will be described to you shortly. The second half or the second purpose THE POLO CLUB of the hearing is to discuss the contents of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This application has actually been before the Planning Board since March of 2006. A positive declaration, which was a statement by the Planning Board that this needed an environmental study, was issued by the Planning Board in July of 2006. There was an earlier public hearing I believe on the scoping back in August. The scoping outline is the issues that need to be addressed. The applicant has now provided the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which has been available in Town Hall as well as in the web addresses that were read to you. What the Planning Board would like to hear from the public is your comments on the environmental issues and the content of that Draft Environmental Impact Statement as well as comments on the site plan itself. Those comments will be received here this evening --at this evening's hearing and will continue to be received by mail or in writing delivered to the Town Hall for ten days after the close of the hearing. Ten days ends on a Sunday so that tenth THE POLO CLUB day will be extended to Monday, October 1st. In terms of the conduct of the hearing, in a moment Mr. Winglovitz will describe the project, the Chairman will then ask members of the public who wish to address the Board to please do so. We would ask that you raise your hand to be identified and you step forward so that all can hear you. If you would give us your name, spelling your name for our Stenographer, and tell us where you live in relation to the project so we can understand what perspective you bring to bear. Address your comments to the Board. If you have questions and they can be answered readily and easily this evening, the Chairman may call upon either the applicant's representatives or one of the Town's consultants to answer them. All of your comments and questions will then need to be addressed, whether they can be addressed this evening or not, to the extent that it is appropriate in a document called a Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is the looseleaf binder size document over there. After the close of this hearing the applicant will be THE POLO CLUB required to take this transcript and further address the comments that the public has raised as well as those that the Board Members and the consultants may raise as well. That document will then be reviewed by the Planning Board and ultimately found acceptable with whatever changes are needed, and the Planning Board will then move forward with a review of the project and issue a document called a Findings Statement which is an announcement of the provisions, mitigation measures and changes or conditions that need to be attached to any plan approval, and the applicant will be required to amend the plans to accommodate those announced findings in that statement. All of those things will happen down the road. All of the meetings of the Planning Board are open to the public. It's not likely that there will be any further public hearings, though. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. Ross Winglovitz, please. MR. WINGLOVITZ: Good evening. I'm Ross Winglovitz with Engineering Properties, I'm THE POLO CLUB the site civil engineer for the project. I'm here this evening with Jane Daley, counsel for Meadow Creek Development who is the developer for the property. This evening we're before you regarding The Polo Club. As Mike had stated, this is a 126 unit town home project located on the east side of New York State Route 300 just south of Jeanne Drive to the north and the commercial uses there, and just north of Gardnertown Farms Road which is the private road to Gardnertown Farm which is just south of the project site. The site encompasses approximately 39 acres. There are 126 town homes proposed across those 39 acres. The main entry here will be a boulevard entrance into the site with a looped road creating a courtyard effect in the middle and two dead end cul-de-sacs with several units on each of those. There is an existing house --some of you know the property. There's an existing house and some outbuildings located approximately here. Those will be removed as part of the project. Much of the vegetation along 300 is to THE POLO CLUB be preserved on either side of the existing house as a buffer to the project from 300. There's a clubhouse proposed as part of the project. That clubhouse will contain a pool, a playground, and there's also a basketball and tennis court proposed as part of the project for recreational amenities to service the future residents of the development. There's a sidewalk system. Sidewalks on one side throughout the project connecting everybody to each other, to 300 and to the clubhouse. An extensive landscaping plan has been developed regarding buffering from neighboring properties, 300, Gardnertown Farms. Much of Gardnertown Farms buffering is going to be leaving existing vegetation in place with some supplemental vegetation I believe for the first building and existing land --existing trees and supplemental fencing and landscaping for areas to the north along Jeanne Drive. There are two wetlands systems that are with the project, one in a lower area that runs from north to south through the project in this THE POLO CLUB approximate location and one that runs along Gidneytown Brook. These are Federal wetlands. They were delineated and confirmed by the Army Corp of Engineers. There are no State wetlands on site and there are no jurisdictional waterways on site for the DEC. Gidneytown Brook is a class C stream and does not require a permit. Stormwater for the site generally flows from north to south and into the two corridors that I discussed earlier. There are six ponds actually now in the site development plan, one at the front of the site which will be designed as a pond with some water to be aesthetically pleasing and then five other smaller ponds at the rear of the site. These are all proposed for stormwater treatment, for water quality and water quantity. These are done in accordance with the Town's stormwater criteria and the New York State DEC's criteria for treating stormwater. A traffic study has been completed for the project. They considered this project and the other project across the road and other developments in the area. There were seven intersections analyzed from the intersection of THE POLO CLUB 300 and 32 the furthest north down to 300 and 52 at the south end. The results of the traffic study indicated that there are some improvements warranted in the future when these projects are built out, at Gardnertown Road and 300 and at 52 and 300. The applicant has proposed a fair share contribution towards those improvements since there's many people involved with those improvements, including the State DOT, the Town and other developments in the area. Utilities for the site are being provided primarily through New York State Route 300. There's electric and gas available as well as Town water. There's I think a fourteen-inch water main on the east side of 300 that will be tapped for the project and looped through. Sewer for the project is going to be coming from the Plattekill Turnpike trunk sewer. That's a sewer project that was envisioned by the Town in the early `90s and was permitted I think around `95 and has just recently been re-permitted. That will bring the sewer up the Quassaic Creek corridor, up 300 to the project and will connect in just south of the project THE POLO CLUB 14 site, actually near the entrance to the proposed Driscoll Subdivision. An archeological investigation was done to see if there was anything historic or prehistoric of significance on the site. Nothing was found. That has been signed off by the State. There was also a fiscal analysis done regarding assessment of school children. It was predicted there would be 52 school children from this project entering into the school system. I think the fiscal analysis ended up that it was pretty much a wash as far as taxes generated for the schools and the total number of children to be generated by the project. The project has been in front of the Board for some time and we look forward to working with the Board further on it. We have no further comments. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. As was said earlier in the evening by Mike Donnelly, Planning Board Attorney, at this point we would like the public to have the opportunity to address Ross or our consultants with any THE POLO CLUB questions or comments that they may have. If you would give your name. MS. LEVINSTEIN: My name is Sheila Levinstein, L-E-V-I-N-S-T-E-I-N, I live at 1569 Route 300. I came before the Board last time with the Driscoll thing because that was going to be two feet off my property line. I would like to know where the road is going to be now to get into this property, because I'm right across from the entrance to Gardnertown Farms? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. I think Karen met with you later on in the field or - MS. LEVINSTEIN: Yeah, I know. That sort of settled --I mean - CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Just in response to that. Thank you. MR. WINGLOVITZ: Here's the driveway for Gardnertown Farms. It's approximately right in this location. The Driscoll driveway is down here. So you're approximately 500 feet south of the proposed driveway entrance. MS. LEVINSTEIN: Of the new one? MR. WINGLOVITZ: Yes. This project. MS. LEVINSTEIN: I just want to know THE POLO CLUB what's going to happen when a hundred cars come out of this project at 8 o'clock in the morning and a hundred cars come out of Driscoll at 8 o'clock in the morning? I just don't know what's going to happen to that road. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Do you care to discuss the traffic impacts during the morning and the evening? MS. LEVINSTEIN: I can't drive there now. MR. WINGLOVITZ: There was a complete traffic impact assessment that was done for this project. Actually the Board asked that it also include Driscoll and the combined effects of the project just as you bring it up, and then on top of that they also asked to consider any other projects that were in front of the Planning Board as well as future growth in the area as background growth always occurs. Based on that it was identified that there were improvements required to Gardnertown Road and 300. The problem is making lefts coming north there and on Route 52 and 300. So there's, you know, a concept of what needs to be done. THE POLO CLUB What the Town has been trying to do along with the development --the developers of the projects and the DOT has put together a plan of how those improvements would be implemented and paid for. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Wersted represents yourself and the Planning Board and the Town in reference to doing a review of the studies that were performed by Ross Winglovitz. I'll have Ken Wersted also speak on behalf of your question. Ken. MR. WERSTED: Just a point of clarification. You're directly across from Gardnertown - MS. LEVINSTEIN: About three feet off. I'm looking at it. I'm about three feet off their entrance. I'm just a little bit off. Right across from them. My property is there but my house is just on this side. I own the other driveway. There's a driveway, a circular driveway there. That's all my property. My house is a little bit over, about five feet right across from the entrance. THE POLO CLUB MR. WERSTED: Just scaling it off, it looks like you'll be --the two driveways are approximately 250 feet apart. MS. LEVINSTEIN: Apart? MR. WERSTED: Correct. MS. LEVINSTEIN: Thank you. MR. WERSTED: Speaking to traffic, the site driveway of this project --they come up with report cards so to speak of intersections. The site driveway is going to operate I believe at a level of service C or D in the morning. In the evening obviously it's going to be harder to get out because a lot more people are commuting home. Most of the traffic for the project is all going to be entering but in the afternoon the exiting approach is going to operate on level of service E. I would suspect that your driveway is going to be something similar to that in terms of getting in and out of Route 300. You'll still be able to find gaps in the traffic to get out but obviously as traffic throughout the --you know, this area north of here, just over time other things are going to develop and it's just going to continue to get more and more difficult. THE POLO CLUB MS. LEVINSTEIN: It's bad now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Additional comments or questions from the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Pat Hines who represents the Planning Board for matters that relate to drainage, he'll also be working with the Town in coordination of the extension of the water and sewer lines. He works with the town engineer. Pat. MR. HINES: We reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and are continuing to review that document. We'll be providing written comments to the Board. We have previously reviewed it with regard to complying with the scope to make sure that all the issues in the scope were in the document prior to it being released for public review. We've reviewed the drainage on the project. As Mr. Winglovitz stated, there are several detention pond facilities that are incorporated into the project to provide both THE POLO CLUB water quality and water quantity control to reduce the amount of runoff from the additional impervious surfaces as well as provide water quality benefits with regard to reduction of any anticipated pollution loadings from that runoff. We are reviewing the computer models that they have provided in the document right now. The sewer for the site is contingent on the Plattekill Turnpike sewer extension. That project must be completed for this project to be undertaken. It's linked with the project, the Driscoll project which we heard commented on earlier. That project has received a re-approval from the Department of Environmental Conservation. It was reviewed for its environmental impacts back in the early `90s, received a permit and was put on the shelf basically because there was no one to pay for that project. Now the developer of this project and the adjoining project across the street are going to provide funding and actually construct the portions of that project from the existing Town sewer lines to the project entrance drive serving The Polo project. THE POLO CLUB Along with our review of the drainage we're reviewing the project with regard to soil erosion and sediment control and making sure that the plans are in order and in compliance with both the Town's and DEC's requirements for that. We also are coordinating through my office with another consultant that the Town uses for environmental review for the flora and fauna impacts regarding the project,, a Dr. Shuster who is an expert in those areas is reviewing the project with regard to the vegetation, the flora and fauna impacts to make sure that all the issues regarding potential impacts to threatened or endangered species or wildlife and vegetation issues are addressed. We anticipate getting a comment letter back from him within the timeframe. There is an alternative plan in the D.E.I.S. that addresses a potential property line dispute. Maybe Ross can speak to that. Where that stands with the alternatives I don't know but there's a potential to move the three buildings to the rear and re-orient them based on that. THE POLO CLUB MR. WINGLOVITZ: Mr. Danker is here this evening. Mr. Danker owns this portion of the site which we're in contract to purchase. There's a dispute regarding the contract. We submitted a plan as an alternate to this plan that if we can't resolve our differences that we would proceed with. It basically rotates these units on either side of this and does not propose any development on Mr. Danker's property. We proceeded with the worst-case scenario as far as environmental impacts which is the most highly developed project. So if we switch to that alternate in the future - MR. HINES: I mentioned that because that is included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and is being reviewed currently with the plan before you tonight. With that, that's the extent of our review to date. We will be issuing written comments to follow up. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mr. Danker, would you like to make any comments at this point? MR. DANKER: No. We're still negotiating. THE POLO CLUB CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. Bryant Cocks who represents the Planning Board and the Town is our Planning Consultant. Bryant. MR. COCKS: We also reviewed the D.E.I.S. to make sure it was in conformance with the scoping document. We have submitted comments to the applicant and once they receive comments from the public, including any written comments in the ten-day waiting period, they'll produce the F.E.I.S. which will also be reviewed by us. Also at the same time we're reviewing this for site plan which includes lot layout, aesthetics and the recreational needs. We're still currently reviewing that. After that we will also provide comments. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. Karen Arent is our Landscape Architect and Karen represents the Town and the Planning Board as far as SEQRA issues and visual impacts and also landscaping. We depend upon Karen's expert advice. Karen. THE POLO CLUB MS. ARENT: I reviewed the project to make sure it's well screened from the outside neighboring properties. During the review we were able to save more trees than what was originally proposed. We're also asking to save more trees. The engineers have my comments and hopefully they'll be able to save additional trees. They've also provided screening with new plantings, new evergreens and various different types of plantings. My comments also have a list of additional plantings that are needed to buffer this project site from the local roads. I also reviewed a section of the D.E.I.S. that spoke about the recreation fees and not providing the recreation fees to the Town. The Town, when a new residential unit is developed, collects $1,500 for recreation fees. That goes into a general fund for parks and things. The developers are looking to use the recreation fees on site instead of providing the money, so what we're asking them to do is to study the future recreational needs of the Town THE POLO CLUB as well as the recreational needs of the project site, what they are providing, to see if what they are providing is enough to satisfy the entire population of the project. That's got to be in the Final Environmental Impact study, these studies. Also in the architectural review, this is something that I didn't write down but the facades really show a lot of garage and we have to figure out a way to mitigate that, the visual impact of that on the street scape. We have to look a little more carefully at the garage --I mean at the architectural facades to make them aesthetically pleasing. The rest of my comments have to do with things that have been to shown, construction fencing around the trees so that the big excavation equipment doesn't ride over their roots and eventually kill them. It actually takes five years for trees to die after construction. People don't realize how much damage occurs during construction. So I'll be reviewing the plans to make sure all those proper notes are on there. THE POLO CLUB That's it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. Ken Wersted with Creighton, Manning Engineers. They are Traffic Consultants. They represent the Planning Board and the Town's people. Ken Wersted, please. MR. WERSTED: We've been reviewing this project by itself and also in context with the other development, the Driscoll project across the street, relative to traffic. We've been looking at the traffic volumes that this project would produce as well as the other one and the impacts on Route 300 and the adjoining intersections. With that, in reviewing the D.E.I.S. we had a couple of items on the traffic analysis. We expect those to be taken care of during the F.E.I.S. process. In addition to that we've also been looking at the site driveway locations and also some internal circulation. Those comments have been provided to the applicant prior to this point. THE POLO CLUB CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Before I turn it over to the Planning Board Members for their comments, Mike Donnelly, Planning Board Attorney, we had discussed somewhat the recreation fees. If you could bring us along on that. MR. DONNELLY: Just as a follow up, I think I had sent an e-mail to your office, Ross, that if you're going to pursue a request for a waiver of those fees you'll have to provide as part of the F.E.I.S. a study of the burden placed on the Town's facilities for recreation and whether that burden is met by what you have on site. If that's the direction you go, if that substantiates that, the Board can consider allowing the recreation on site to be the sum total of what you're providing. We'll need to see that study. MR. WINGLOVITZ: I did have a brief discussion with Mark Taylor about that. He said you two talked. We understand what we have to do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: For clarification, when we talk about the recreation fees, the recreation facilities for the club will be built THE POLO CLUB when how many units are in place and what phase will that be built? MR. WINGLOVITZ: I know it's earlier on because that was the commitment we had to make. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I think you'll find it on the schedule for phasing. That makes reference to it as far as the units. It also talks about sort of a crossover between phase I and phase II. If you look to scheduling for phase I, I think you'll be able to speak to the audience. It's on page 2.27. MR. WINGLOVITZ: Prior to the fortieth certificate of occupancy or any certificate of occupancy for phase II units, construction of all recreational facilities and the emergency access drive shall be completed. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Does everyone understand that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Thank you. I'll turn to the Planning Board Members for their comments. Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: During work session we talked about parking again. One of the options THE POLO CLUB that we tossed up was the possibility of making your roads 28 feet rather than 20 feet. If you made them 28 feet then there wouldn't be any issues with on-street parking. With 20 feet there is an issue with on-street parking. Even though I understand technically you meet the parking requirements, for visitor parking even though you meet the requirements it's not practical. I understand there's been some discussion already with I believe Karen on that issue. This is something that we talked about in work session. I thought I would just bring that up. It might be something if you do, though, consider the 28-foot road, then that will obviously bring up environmental things that have to be re-looked at. That would definitely, at least from my opinion, take care of any on-street parking issues. You wouldn't have to worry about that. MR. WINGLOVITZ: We do provide some off-street parking areas. Would that be in lieu of - MR. BROWNE: I think what the consensus was of the Board is if you went to the 28 feet THE POLO CLUB there wouldn't be a requirement for - MR. WINGLOVITZ: Because they could park right on the street? MR. BROWNE: Yes. MR. WINGLOVITZ: Okay. We'll take a look at that. MR. DONNELLY: There was a thought that even apart from the 28 feet, if you were going to stay with this that you still need a few pocket type areas where there's overflow parking. In the event someone has a get-together at their house it's not logical to think they're going to park in a neighbor's driveway. There are some but I think Bryant's memo talks about the potential need for some others that are conveniently located to more of the units. Finally, I assume that you will petition the Town Board to allow enforcement of the no parking restrictions by the Town police. MR. BROWNE: If they did the 28-foot - MR. DONNELLY: You wouldn't need to if you did that, only if you stayed with the 20. MR. WINGLOVITZ: We'll take a look at that. THE POLO CLUB CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Right now you're proposing or you're stating that there's parking for 553 vehicles and we're looking for the convenience --looking at Brighton Green now do you find that that design and the amount of parking spaces available is turning out to be a functional design? MR. WINGLOVITZ: So far, but the occupancy isn't ---we're at 50 units or something I think. It's hard to tell. One of the challenges we have here is location in relation to the units. I think that's what you're talking about. Brighton Green we were able to spread them out more across the site. Here we're limited. It may be an alternative we could look at. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: Just a little more continuation. The thought on it was that when guests arrive at these houses they're not going to be parking in the garages or right in front of the garage doors. They need someplace else to park. Cliff suggested one alternative but certainly the 20-foot wide streets with some more THE POLO CLUB pocket parking spots would work, too. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ed O'Donnell? MR. O'DONNELL: Mike, the issue with the land being withdrawn from this application, if in fact they can't come to an agreement, I hope they do, what happens with this? Does it have to start from scratch? MR. DONNELLY: There's two things going on. In the environmental review this is a more intrusive, or whatever the word is, proposal than would be if those units were pulled back ,so there would be no need to repeat the environmental review. However, they would have to amend their proposed plan to make it the alternate plan, and that would have to be finalized before you could take action on the site plan. MR. HINES: But the amended plan is incorporated. We have that in the document and we are reviewing that also. It leaves that open to be able to do that. MR. DONNELLY: It doesn't seem to create any new or different environmental impacts than these, and these are of a higher magnitude THE POLO CLUB than with that pull back. MR. O'DONNELL: I guess I can conclude we're not going to waste our time by looking at it. Our time, us. I hate to waste my time. MR. DONNELLY: After the F.E.I.S. is done and the Findings are issued, if they can't resolve this they're going to have to put this on the back burner or adopt the other plan if they want us to continue to process it. MR. O'DONNELL: There's an issue here about the parkland fees, $1,500 per unit? MR. DONNELLY: Right. MR. O'DONNELL: I don't claim to be an expert on this but I don't understand why this developer shouldn't be expected to pay it just like everybody else has. MR. DONNELLY: The way the State law reads is this: Every development is required to provide their own recreational space on site, but if the planning board makes a determination that suitable recreational areas cannot be provided on site, than as the exception to the general rule the town can set a fee per unit that is collected in lieu of providing the recreational space. In THE POLO CLUB recent years most developers, and frankly most towns, have preferred the fee in lieu of rather than the recreational space, primarily because the needs of most towns are for more formalized recreational areas like ball fields, soccer fields and the like. This developer is saying that we think that we provide recreational space on site that's adequate for the needs of these residents. I'm advising you that the applicant must provide and will need to demonstrate that that is true by giving us a study that shows what demand the residents of this project will place for recreational space; and number two, that the recreational facilities that you're providing meets that need. It seems to me likely, just thinking out loud, that there will be children of an age who will play in soccer leagues or on baseball teams. I don't know what the study will say about that issue but that's the flavor of what needs to be demonstrated. It's certainly permissible. As a matter of fact, the way the law reads it's the preferred alternative for them to provide recreation on site. MR. O'DONNELL: Which would be equal to THE POLO CLUB $1,500 per unit? MR. DONNELLY: It isn't a dollar issue, it's an adequacy of meeting the need for recreational space that these residents will create. Different developments might have different needs depending upon ages, and different towns have different needs. For instance, if the Town had more than enough baseball fields and soccer fields, then there's not as much of a demand or burden placed upon the Town's facilities. That's why the study has to be both what this development is going to create by way of burden and the adequacy of the Town's facilities in the first place. MR. O'DONNELL: Ross, I assume that we will see the results of this study, what you're going to perform, prior to any approvals. MR. WINGLOVITZ: We would provide this with the F E.I.S. if we pursue that, yes. MR. O'DONNELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Additional comments? MR. O'DONNELL: Not for me. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? THE POLO CLUB MR. PROFACI: I have nothing further. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I just have one or two comments as it relates to typos. Page 1-8, you have construction in four phases over three years. On page 2-24 you speak of phasing being three phases. On page 2-21 you state the sidewalks are going to be four-foot wide and on page 22 again you state the sidewalks to be four- foot wide. The only other comment that I'll bring to the table that you referenced in your document was that you wanted a determination or discussion from the Planning Board in reference to allowing curbside pick-up. You wanted some kind of discussion. That was on page 4. Do you want to discuss that now or take that under consideration at a later date? I'll talk to the Board Members somewhat now about it. Cliff Browne? MR. BROWNE: At work session we talked about the curbside pick-up as an alternative, the central dumpster area as an alternative. Your current plan is looking at I believe curbside; correct? THE POLO CLUB MR. WINGLOVITZ: Correct. It's curbside pick-up, yes. MR. BROWNE: We're talking about curbside, not by the unit. We're talking at the curb. Realizing that a lot of the carriers are moving to one-man trucks with automated arms and so on adequate for that --I don't know. Your client, I assume he's leaning in that direction. The pros, the cons, how do you see it? MR. WINGLOVITZ: All the builders I've talked with in the recent years prefer curbside pick-up for the reason it fosters personal responsibility. They find that having a central location ends up being much more of a mess. Somebody drops something, they're not going to know it was me, it was Cliff. Nobody cleans it up. This way everybody takes care of their own. You know who it was that left their garbage out there that made a mess. They think it's a much more palatable method for everybody in the development. They find that's the preferred method. MR. BROWNE: One of the issues with the curbside with these units is that the trash THE POLO CLUB containers are typically fairly large. I believe I remember hearing or seeing something where you're providing space in the garage area specifically for that. MR. WINGLOVITZ: Orchard Hills. It was one of our findings in the Findings Statement that we had to provide an internal location for storage of those. We had to have them off the street within twenty-four hours of pick up or whatever it was. MR. BROWNE: Okay. MR. WINGLOVITZ: Within twenty-four hours of being put out there I think it was. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I think the Board then would be favorable with that type of organization, the curbside pick-up. MR. WINGLOVITZ: It would be a unified hauler or single hauler, so one guy. MR. DONNELLY: I think that's what the finding was, that that would be in the HOA bylaws. MR. BROWNE: On this project you're going to have two condo regimes and one HOA. Is that correct? THE POLO CLUB MR. WINGLOVITZ: Two condo regimes. We have two basic phases splitting the project through the middle. One, two. There were three or four at one point and we looked at it from an engineering perspective. We propose two condominiums, one for the front and one for the back. No overall HOA. MR. BROWNE: No overall HOA? MR. WINGLOVITZ: No overall HOA. MR. BROWNE: So then each condo regime would have a duplicate set of rules if you will in the prospectus? MR. WINGLOVITZ: In theory they would but I would like to tie them together so it's unified. MR. HINES: You really have to. They're going to share a lot of the same facilities, recreation facilities, drainage facilities. Water and sewer are going to be tied together. MR. BROWNE: Mike, do you want to make - MR. DONNELLY: Mark Taylor, because it's an enforcement issue under our resolution, THE POLO CLUB would be required to be given a copy of those bylaws and rules and regulations. They'll have to be approved before the approval can be final. MR. WINGLOVITZ: Because that would short vision a unified approach to those issues, stormwater, water and sewer maintenance, garbage. Those types of major - MR. BROWNE: Why would you not use an HOA? MR. WINGLOVITZ: An overall HOA? MR. BROWNE: Yeah. MR. WINGLOVITZ: Additional layers of management. I don't know if that's --if it's warranted in this case. MR. BROWNE: As long as you can work it out logistically. MS. DALEY: We could try to do two condo associations as opposed to laying another association on top of it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Is the Board in agreement than the applicant can move forward and design this project with curbside pick-up? MR. MENNERICH: Provided those provisions that were mentioned are included in THE POLO CLUB the Findings and in the HOA agreements or whatever. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Then we'll move in that direction. Is there any additional comment from the public at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Having given the public an opportunity to partake in the review of The Polo Club Draft Environmental Impact Statement and site plan, having received comment from Sheila Levinstein and having heard the reviews from our consultants, at this point I'll move to close the public hearing on The Polo Club and allow until the 1st of October at 4:30 in the afternoon to receive any written comment at the Planning Board office. MR. MENNERICH: So moved. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Ken Mennerich. MR. O'DONNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a second by Ed O'Donnell. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) THE POLO CLUB CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself. So carried. Sheila, thank you for attending this evening. MS. LEVINSTEIN: You're welcome. (Time noted: 7:39 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 44 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 5 QUICK CHEK (2006-33) & (2007-26) 6 Route 9W 7 Section 25; Block 5; Lot 1 B & R-3 Zones 8 -------------------------X 9 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 10 AND LOT LINE CHANGE 11 12 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 7:41 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 15 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH 17 EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS 20 PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 KENNETH WERSTED 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: JENNIFER PORTER 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 25 (845)895-3018 QUICK CHEK CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The following item of business we have this evening is Quick Chek. It's a conceptual site plan and lot line change located on Route 9W, it's Zoned B and R-3. I believe it's being represented by Jennifer porter. MS. PORTER: Yes. Good evening, Board Members. As the Chairman indicated, my name is Jennifer Porter, I'm an attorney with Gibbons and we are the attorneys for the applicant, Quick Chek Corporation. At this point I would like to quickly introduce the other team members that will be presenting tonight. Jeffrey Martel from Bohler Engineering is our project engineer, Chuck Oliveua is from Atlantic Traffic and he's our traffic engineer, and we also have with us tonight Bob Volario who is the vice president of real estate for Quick Chek Corporation. We are here tonight in connection with our application for site plan approval for a Quick Chek convenience store with a gasoline filling station and a car wash which are all uses which are permitted as of right in the B zoning QUICK CHEK district. We are also here tonight in connection with an application which was filed as part of this last submission for lot consolidation approval to consolidate lots 1 and 8 into one single tax lot. We are here tonight essentially to address some of the comments which were raised during our last appearance before the Planning Board which was in May of this year, and also we would like to address some procedural issues with the Board tonight in connection with some referrals. We are here tonight seeking conceptual approval with respect to this project. We have had an opportunity to review the most recent set of comments which have been generated by the Town's consultants. With the exception of one comment we feel that the comments are minor in nature and can be handled as part of the ongoing preliminary and final review process in connection with this site plan and lot consolidation plan. The one outstanding issue which remains, to our understanding, is a concern for QUICK CHEK the design of the site. We previously, both in writing and orally at the prior meetings, presented reasons in terms of safety, operations as well as zoning considerations as to why we feel that the site as designed adequately serves the needs of the community and is at the same time aesthetically pleasing and meets --and is in conformity with the zoning requirements within the B Zone. Among the safety considerations in support of our request that the site remain as designed are due to the fact that when patrons' view out to the roadway is limited and their view is restricted, that compromises the safety of the site. If you can think of it in terms of if you were to relegate the pumps to the rear of the site, if you're standing behind the site and your view as to the roadway is limited, your sense of vulnerability as well as safety is compromised. If you picture an individual standing behind the site, they're directly behind the building up against the woods. The question is whether or not criminal activity could occur. In terms of those safety operations we feel that having the QUICK CHEK pumps at the front of the site allows for patrons to have clear visibility of the roadway as well as for police cars driving by the site and as well as for other vehicles driving by the site to have a clear view of activity at the pumps. In addition, with respect to operational considerations which we previously listed, Quick Chek would be at a significant economic disadvantage relative to other fuel retailers within the community as well as within the county and within the state if we were to change the design of the site. By relegating the fuel pumps to the side or rear of the site it limits our ability to put that use and make that use available to passing members of the public. For this type of use most of the trip generations or individuals coming to the site specifically come to that site because of passing by the site and seeing the availability of that use, the fuel pumps here in this situation. With respect to zoning considerations, one thing that we previously indicated is that the current site plan as designed complies with all of the bulk and dimensional requirements of QUICK CHEK the B Zone. Although the site is situated within the B and the R-3 Zones, no aspects of the site are proposed to be located within the R-3 Zone and therefore the site is conforming in all aspects. In addition, the proposed layout is also the industry standard for fuel retailers and other retail facilities in and outside the Town. What I'd like to do at this time, if the Board is willing, is to allow Bob Volario to tell you some information regarding who Quick Chek is and what Quick Chek is about. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I think before we --I think what we have to stay with is the issues at hand. You're right as far as the code. In 2005 the Town adopted their comprehensive plan. During that dialogue, and the Planning Board was part of that dialogue with the Town, the Planning Board had spoken with the Town Board who adopted the comprehensive plan and said what we were looking for was a tool to develop the community character of the Town. We discussed with the Town guideline standards. The Town took those thoughts, they worked on them for a period QUICK CHEK of well over a year and just recently they adopted guideline standards. So the eyes that we're looking at this project now with is guideline standards. MS. PORTER: Mm'hm'. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: We look at the 9W corridor as being a new frontier. We see the building that was put up by John J. Lease Realtors as being a family operated real estate business that's been in this community since 1938, realizing that Quick Chek has a history too, and they put up what is considered to be a very stately brick building, nice roof lines, nice landscaping. And then we drive up the corridor and we have the Powelton Club which is historic in its own nature and it has this quiet nature of greenery. We go further north on the corridor on the left-hand side and we have medical buildings that have a very classic look to them. And now we're approaching your proposed use. Realizing that you don't own the property right now so the hardship is something that you could walk away from financially, you don't own it. We're also looking at the site in New QUICK CHEK Windsor and saying at this particular time there's no way we would like to see what we see in New Windsor in the Town of Newburgh. An example being you started out a few weeks ago and you have a sign that says coffee $0.99 a cup and you have a proliferation of the sign along the frontage, realizing in the Town of Newburgh that's not allowed. We'll put that up front now. Two weeks later you come up with these large banners advertising everything that you have to buy in your store. Again, what we're looking to minimize, and that was the idea of the guideline standards, is this kind of proliferation of a visual impact we don't want. Again, 9W is a corridor that hasn't been developed. It has a history of what we see in New Windsor right now that we don't want to see in Newburgh. I appreciate the fact that you're here to talk about the history of your company. Your original correspondence talked about how you contribute to the company --to the community, but we have some hard issues that we need to address. Part of these issues weren't addressed in your resubmission. QUICK CHEK I'll have Karen discuss that now. MS. PORTER: Right. That will be something that we can give you an update - CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Let us kind of put this on the table. Pat Hines has discussed drainage. We know where we're at with drainage. Ken Wersted discussed traffic. There's a real need to identify this property in the way that it fits with our community character. Right now it's not working. MS. PORTER: Mm'hm'. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: We'll soften it and we'll have Pat Hines talk about drainage. MS. PORTER: Did you want to hear from the applicant prior to going - CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: No. We know what our needs are. Our needs may not fit to what you're looking to do, so that's where you're going to have to come to a decision. We can't afford to give up the corridor on 9W for what your needs are at this point in time. It's too new to do that. The guideline standards are too new. Pat Hines. QUICK CHEK MR. HINES: I will note my comments have never been soft before. We have previously reviewed the drainage report, commented on it. A revised report was submitted to us addressing both the water quality and quantity controls. With this being a hot spot use because of the gasoline dispensing, additional efforts were put in place by the applicant for water quality controls. A large stormwater management facility is located on the north side of the site that's going to function both for quantity and for water quality. A dry swale --combination dry swale and detention facility were incorporated in there to provide for that. In response to our comments an the additional detention pond was located on the north side of the site along the 9W right-of-way. We feel drainage has been adequately addressed and the applicants have done a good job addressing that. One of our concerns regarding the subsurface sanitary sewer disposal system is it will require approval by the Orange County Health Department as it is a fill system. As we move QUICK CHEK through the procedure eventually they'll have to get a referral from your Board for the review of that project. Typically the County doesn't review it prior to preliminary approval but I would suggest that they may approve it earlier in the process if the Board sends a letter. I think it's critical to their site to make sure that the County will approve the fill system use. I don't have any indication from them yet that they will. New construction in Orange County does not allow new residential construction is not allowed to use fill type systems. They may view this commercial system as being permitted. We'll be looking to the applicant as to the status of when they are with the Health Department or if they have been there yet. I see that as a hurdle to the project that they need to overcome. We're looking for the jurisdictional fire department to weigh in on the layout, which as we just discussed may be changing somewhat. Notes on the plans regarding demolition of existing structures. I don't see it noted on the plans but I'm assuming that the existing drive-in theater screen is going to be removed as QUICK CHEK part of this project hopefully, what's left of it there. We have some comments on the drainage and utility crossings and pipe clean-up. The septic system plans which were prepared not by Bohler but by another consultant have some coordination issues that need to be resolved. The septic plans identify a well on the site that's not shown on Bohler's plans to be removed, and some of the inverts and grades should be adjusted. I have those comments. The applicants have those. There's various references to reinforced concrete pipe which need to be cleaned up. I don't believe the applicant proposes reinforced concrete pipe. Those need to be cleaned up. A comment on the catch basins. Two of the catch basins in the detail don't have sumps. Those should be modified in compliance with the Town's regulations. That's the extent of our comments to date. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Wersted, QUICK CHEK Traffic Consultant. MR. WERSTED: We have a couple of minor site plan comments including removing some of the stop bars on Route 9W. also removing the word "Stop" on the site driveway exiting the site. Also potential to widen the two parking spaces near the vacuum area to provide a larger area for people to vacuum out their cars. Our other comments have to do with the improvements out to 9W. The applicant is proposing to widen Route 9W to provide a left turn into the site. That center left-turn lane will be extended down to the intersection of Old Post Road which will provide an area for people southbound turning left onto Old Post Road to allow people who are traveling through to not be interrupted and back up onto 9W. Relative to the widening there will be some shoulder reductions on 9W. We just ask that the applicant continue to coordinate with DOT and keep us apprised of those negotiations and those discussions with DOT relative to decreasing those paved shoulders. Lastly, the applicant has requested to put in a traffic signal. DOT has said that they QUICK CHEK prefer the project be developed and then to monitor the operations of the site driveway after it's complete to determine whether a traffic signal is needed at that point. Then we just request that the applicant perform an after study of the site driveway to determine the project's trip generation and also the operations of the site driveway and Route 9W. That information would then be provided to DOT as well as the Town just documenting the operations after the project is complete. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant. MR. COCKS: When we previously reviewed this application we made the comment about the new design --new buffering and screening requirements. The applicant has provided a 75-foot buffer from the back of the site, from the rear of the site to screen it from any residential zones. We also reviewed it for lot layout. There's going to be no variances required. All the setbacks are being met. The site plan, you guys have the QUICK CHEK stonewall labeled as two feet six inches. It has to be a minimum of three feet. We discussed the New Windsor and the Florida stores. I took a look at both of them yesterday and there's a couple changes from the --I guess you guys had a photo rendering and this uses brick columns instead of just plain white columns and shingles on top of the canopy. These are good improvements. We're still going to have to work on them but it's definitely better than what we're seeing over there to begin with. On the site plan you guys have a whole bunch of red bollards including in the back of every parking spot. I didn't really see what the need was for having all these at every single parking spot, especially on the sides of the building. There's going to be a curb before the sidewalk and it's a brick building, so I don't really think there's any reason to have bollards blocking everything. I can understand in front of the windows and maybe in front of the handicap spots because of the ramp there, but it's just -they're very bright and not very visually QUICK CHEK pleasing. There's also internally illuminated signs labeled on the plans. Those aren't allowed in the Town of Newburgh code. This includes the Quick Chek sign on the canopy and on the building. I actually talked to Jen today and she was aware of this. We're going to need to see changes with those. We would also like to see some kind of landscaping in between the sidewalk and the building, especially on the sides to soften just the long brick facade. That's going to be reviewed by Karen, though. All the fencing around the stormwater management areas are going to have to be reviewed and they're going to have to be shown on the plans. Once the wetland issues are resolved bring me the signed wetland delineation plan including the site plan set. The applicant mentioned that there's a lot consolidation plan which is actually a subdivision plan under the Town of Newburgh code. It's going to need a separate SEQRA QUICK CHEK determination. Currently we have no issues with it. All it's basically doing is removing the lot line through the middle of the site and making it one large lot. That was about it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen Arent, Landscape Architect. MS. ARENT: During my previous review I mentioned the guideline standards and that the site plan with the gas pumps out front doesn't pay attention to the guideline standards. It has a whole section specifically on automobile service stations. They recommend locating the gas pumps either on the side or in the rear of the building. You mentioned about the safety factor having the gas pumps in the rear. I don't see why having them on the side can't be explored. I think that something should be done to try to conform to these guideline standards. We have a very large project here in the Town of Newburgh that they had a gas station out in front of the building along a road that's not even a public road and they have located their gas pumps in the rear of that building. To be consistent with what we're requiring on other projects I QUICK CHEK think that we have to ask you to do the same ,to see what you can do to orient the site to mitigate the impacts of all those gas pumps out front. Bryant spoke about the illuminated box signs. During the last meeting and in an e-mail it was specifically requested for section views to be drawn across the site so that we can analyze exactly how well the stonewalls are mitigating some of the impacts and shielding some of the parking from the road. We haven't received those yet. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I think what we received in response to them was a photo rendering which wasn't in harmony with what we were looking for. The interesting point was in general I had been speaking to Karen two days prior to your call for your resubmission and she said to me in passing --I'm just talking to you as if I would be talking to you on the phone in public. Karen said to me in passing I just got done speaking with the engineers and they're going to be presenting me with what I had asked QUICK CHEK for. I was surprised within two days we received your resubmission. I said to myself mentally, which isn't a great thing to be talking to, but in talking to myself I said wow, they really responded. Could they respond to this in 48 hours? Apparently you didn't respond to it. So it's an important open-ended issue as far as the visuals that Karen is looking for. It's not a photo rendering. As our consultants looked at this photo rendering they're saying it doesn't look anything like the current site or what the current site will look like. It is a picture but it's not a picture of what we're looking for. I'm going to turn this over to the Board Members eventually also. Karen, I apologize. MS. ARENT: No problem. And then just various tree protection details need to be shown on the erosion control plan. Some tree preservation notes should be placed on the plan. As far as the architecture --I don't know if you want to speak about that now. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I think we'll turn it over to the Board Members to get a sense of QUICK CHEK direction. MS. ARENT: That's it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Cliff Browne? MR. BROWNE: First I'd like to comment and say thanks for getting those speaker stands out of there. Hopefully that's going to be accomplished. I appreciate that. The other thing I wanted to mention is the safety issue viewing the pumps. I'm not buying that argument really. The site is big enough. Quick Chek, there's not many around but a lot of these types of facilities, it's not an issue. It's not an issue. This car is driving through, no this car is on the highway. That's to me a bogus argument. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: I would prefer to see the gas pumps located further to the north to the side of the building. I don't think they have to be in the back necessarily. Concerning the visuals, I don't know if the point was made but I think the visuals are right except it doesn't take into account the topography that you have there, unless you're QUICK CHEK going to be doing a lot of filling in that area which I don't think you're planning on doing. The visuals ought to recognize the topography and at what elevations you're going to be installing the buildings. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: There is currently a stonewall at the Pilot travel center. I don't know if you looked at that on 17K and Lakeside Road. Pilot I believe is a well-known server of the same type of product that you have. Ed O'Donnell? MR. O'DONNELL: Look it, I don't pretend to be an expert in design and architecture but I do know what I like and what I don't like. What I like around here is all the fine work that the development people have done along Route 52 and Union Avenue, the carpet store, the bank building. I mean they are in my taste high standard. I don't want to be unkind but that thing that you built in New Windsor can't even come close to that. It's something that I could never ever approve here. That's just my own personal opinion. It's out of character. It's not even close to what we want QUICK CHEK to do in this Town. If you really want to be here I think you ought to take a look at some of these buildings that have been built around here and try to come up with a design that's going to compliment that. Like I said, just my view. These folks might not feel the same way but I'm very steadfast just so you know. Thanks. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: The Route 9W corridor has for a long time been kind of shabby looking. Our mission here is to try to clean that up and bring that up to a better standard and the standard that's being employed in other parts of the Town of Newburgh. That's why we're asking you to try to work with us to make this an attractive site. I agree with Cliff, I don't think there's a safety issue with putting the pumps on the sides of the building, one side or both sides. I think that could be worked out. We don't want you to build something that looks like the old stuff that's already there and duplicate that lousy look. That's my comment. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Jennifer, I think QUICK CHEK that was a good, clear statement. I couldn't have said it any better myself. That's the point we're at. We realize that this evening we would be declaring our intent for lead agency, we would be circulating to the Orange County Planning Department. We have these planning issues that have to be defined. I'll ask the Board Members if they thought they would want to recognize setting this up for a consultants' meeting or they would want you to come back with the visuals that Karen is asking for. I'll put that on the table for the Board Members. Cliff Browne? MR. BROWNE: I think I would like to know if the applicant is willing to work with the consultants at a meeting first before I would -I mean are you guys agreeable to that? MS. PORTER: That would be fine. MR. BROWNE: Okay. MR. MENNERICH: I'm in favor of it because then the visual aspects can be --we'll know that they're correct when we get to see them. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: All right. Ed QUICK CHEK O'Donnell? MR. O'DONNELL: I think that's the right thing to do. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: I agree. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Realizing, as I said earlier, the catch 22 that we always get caught up in, we were talking about that earlier, is how to police projects after they're built. The amount of banners that you're putting up in New Windsor right now, I know what you're looking to sell but it's really not appealing. It's just --you can shake your head. The other thing I'll say to you in all fairness, and you paid for the service, you had a split rail fence put up along the front of it; correct? Look at the landscaping. You have Boxwood or whatever you have there, the lower railing is crushing the plants that went in. So whoever did your site work and looked at that, I say to you now the plant that's supposed to grow four feet tall is being encumbered from the beginning. It's this kind of hard look that we're going to be looking at with your site. QUICK CHEK It's going to have to work. Please, I don't know your name and we would like to hear. MR. VOLARIO: If I may. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Please. MR. VOLARIO: I'm Bob Volario, the vice president of real estate for Quick Chek Foods. I've digested all the comments everyone has made and appreciate that. We'll definitely take a look at the things being suggested. I would like to make one comment. I hear the Board and I think I understand what the Board seems to be in unison of is to rotate the building say ninety degrees so the pumps are either on the left or the right. We'll analyze that. Please understand that for us first and foremost is safety of our employees. The reason the orientation is what it is is if you've been to our stores you know that we do not overload the drive aisles with displays. If you've been to our stores you know there's nothing in the front whatsoever so there's clear visibility in and out. The reason for that, and it's in conjunction with various police departments where we operate, is so they have clear visibility in QUICK CHEK and out of the store at all times so that there's no --if there's any kind of ill activity going on they can witness it. Once you make a change to that, especially which is, you know, putting the pumps in the rear where you have the vegetation like you do back here, then there's no visibility whatsoever for law enforcement whatsoever, and that does present a real security issue. So if I'm being asked to do only the pumps in the rear, then I guess our meeting is over. If we're asking to rotate it left or right, which is what I think I heard, we'll gladly take a look at that and see if we can make that work with site circulation, truck traffic and the like. As to New Windsor, if the split rail fence is sitting on top of that, we'll make sure we get that corrected. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'm just passing by your site and I'm observing these things. I'm agreeing with Ed O'Donnell as one Board Member, I wouldn't want to see that kind of building and that kind of visual impact on the Route 9W corridor, and based upon what Joe Profaci had said. So it's just not in balance. We're QUICK CHEK holding you to a higher standard because this is a new frontier, the 9W corridor. I agree with the other Board Members, I don't buy the argument of safety. Pilot travel center who probably will take in as many customers as you take in on a daily basis has a stonewall that runs in front of the building. MR. VOLARIO: I know. Pilot also has a huge parking area in the rear, so therefore those pumps that are servicing those trucks get all day activity. The gas canopy for the average traveler however is in the front. So there's an issue --that's the way it is. Of course it's a much larger development requiring large trucks to make use of the facility. That's their business. That's not our business. We don't service large vehicles like that. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Look at the issue of bollards, too. I mean - MS. PORTER: We can address that. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: --anyone can understand with the red bollards around the building. I think for the benefit of the next QUICK CHEK application you'll hear from Bryant Cocks as to when the next work session meeting is at which point you'll be invited to attend. Okay? MR. VOLARIO: Sure. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: At this point I'll move for a motion to declare our intent for lead agency, to set this up for the next available date for a consultants' meeting and to circulate to the Orange County Planning Department. Ms. Porter, if you could supply Bryant Cocks with plans, then he'll circulate that to the Orange County Planning Department. Will one set be enough? MR. COCKS: For the Planning Department, yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Do you want a set to go to the jurisdictional fire department? MR. HINES: We have the lead agency circulation so we need several sets. DOT will be involved. All the interested and involved agencies need a set. MR. COCKS: I'll be in touch. The next work session is next Tuesday. That's a little soon. Is that okay for you guys? QUICK CHEK MS. PORTER: That's fine. MR. BROWNE: So moved. MR. PROFACI: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Cliff Browne. I have a second by Joe Profaci. Any discussion? MR. MENNERICH: The discussion I guess basically is the plans that are going to be forwarded to Orange County Planning Department are going to be this or something that's going to be the result of the --after the work session meeting? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Good point. Good point. MR. MENNERICH: I think it's premature to send this to the Orange County Planning Department the way it is. I would rather see that occur after they've met with our consultants and have come back to us with what the proposal is that we're going to be reviewing. MR. DONNELLY: I think that makes sense. I think we could do the lead agency in any event because if these changes are made it will have less likelihood of environmental QUICK CHEK impacts, so they can make the assessment. It would be helpful to hold off on the Planning Department. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Then I'll rescind that motion and make a second motion. That motion is to declare our intent for lead agency and to set this up --the date is the 25th - MR. COCKS: The 25th. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: --to set this up for a consultants' work session on the 25th of September. MR. BROWNE: I'll move that. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Cliff Browne. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? MR. O'DONNELL: One question. Pat, you mentioned there was a problem or potential problem with the septic. Is that something that should be sent to the Department of Health? MR. HINES: I would like to get that to the Department of Health if it hasn't been there yet. MR. O'DONNELL: That could be a show QUICK CHEK 74 stopper. MR. HINES: It could. The engineer is raising his hand. MR. MARTEL: If I'm allowed briefly. Kleinfelder who is the septic engineer - CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Your name please. MR. MARTEL: Jeff Martel from Bohler Engineering. The septic engineer has met with them on a preliminary basis. They did just witness tests within the past two weeks. We had a preliminary pre-design meeting which I attended, and actually a second design meeting after that. So there is progress being made. I think the witness test groundwater was lower than anticipated but some of the permeability rates were less. They may alter their design. We're confident, at least from our side, that a design will come up that will be acceptable. MR. HINES: Our concern was that typically the Health Department doesn't review it until preliminary and we wanted to caution you to get that done sooner rather than later. If it doesn't work we're spinning our wheels. MR. MARTEL: We're confident we can. QUICK CHEK The sooner we can make that formal application, we'd like to do that as well. MR. O'DONNELL: I was looking out for you as opposed to us. MR. MARTEL: We appreciate that. The sooner the better for us. We appreciate that. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Cliff Browne. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. I had discussion from Ed O'Donnell. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself. So carried. The only thing I ask of you, any correspondence, you had some with the DOT, if you have any with the Orange County Department of Health, it's just a Board policy that we be kept in the loop because any correspondence that we QUICK CHEK 76 get back from these agencies we always make it a policy of referring that on. Okay. MR. DONNELLY: At the risk of prolonging this, Karen mentioned architecture and I think some potential visual impacts might relate to architecture. Are there any comments that the Board wants to make because it's primarily a policy issue and not a technical issue for the consultants, comments that need to be factored into revisions to the plans. MR. O'DONNELL: These guys know. MR. DONNELLY: Bryant noticed for you or called to your attention that this proposal is different in some fashion architecturally than either the Florida store or New Windsor store. Some of you are familiar with one or both of those. I guess my question is are there other things that you might want to see changed, incorporated or modified so we can take those up at the consultants' meeting or do you want to leave it to Karen's judgment? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I know we had talked about a change in the roof design and you responded back you can't do the roof design. I QUICK CHEK think what we're looking for is a balance between what you feel works for you and what we feel works for us. So I think in answer to your question Mike, what the Board may sometimes --the Board may want to have the opportunity to review two or three designs and then --am I speaking in favor? MR. PROFACI: That's fine. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Then we'll work on those designs. There's nothing written in stone right now. MR. DONNELLY: Okay. I think you were successful. MS. PORTER: Thank you. (Time noted: 8:20 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 79 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 KRISTOPHER NOTO 6 (2007-28) 7 South Plank Road Section 64; Block 2; Lot 8.2 8 B Zone 9 -------------------------X CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 11 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 8:20 p.m. 12 Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12550 14 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 KENNETH WERSTED 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: JUSTIN DATES 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 KRISTOPHER NOTO CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The next item of business we have this evening is a conceptual site plan for Kristopher Noto. It's located on South Plank Road, it's zoned B and it's being represented by - MR. DATES: Justin Dates from Maser Consulting. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. Justin, if you would speak up because we have the air conditioner on. MR. DATES: I went through the concept plan proposed. The existing lot is about 1.4 acres and it's actually bisected by Old South Plank Road. There's an eastern and western piece to this parcel. Our proposal site is about .6 acres. As the Chairman said, it's in the Business Zoning District. What we are proposing is a 3,000 square foot retail establishment with associated parking. It will have an entrance to the customer parking off of South Plank Road and then it has a small parking lot over here to the north which is for employee and an unloading area. Due to the linear nature of the site KRISTOPHER NOTO and how it's sandwiched in between the two streets, we are going to require three variances, the first one being the front yard setback off of South Plank Road is 60 feet, we're providing 15; the front yard setback off of Old South Plank Road is 40 feet and we're providing 20; and then also the lot depth which is required at 125, we're providing just over 70 feet. That's really just based on the existing nature of the site. We are in the consolidated water district as well as the Crossroads sewer district. We're proposing municipal water and sewer service to the site. That about sums it up. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Is there anything that the consultants would like to mention at this point other than the necessary variances that are needed? MR. HINES: We discussed at work session the fact that it's a natural subdivision. No further work is needed on that either. MR. DATES: Okay. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Any comments from the Board Members. Cliff Browne? KRISTOPHER NOTO MR. BROWNE: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ed O'Donnell? MR. O'DONNELL: Just one. You guys have gone to the ZBA already once; right? MR. DATES: Correct. There was a --go ahead. MR. O'DONNELL: You didn't get any approvals? MR. DATES: Correct. MR. O'DONNELL: Now you're going back? MR. DATES: Yes. MR. O'DONNELL: What makes you think you're going to get approvals this time? MR. DATES: The initial submission was a two-story building, it was about 4,000 square feet and it had dual use, it was office and retail. It's now a one-story, 3,000 square foot building, single use. So we're hoping that that, you know, impact wise will gain the variances that we need. MR. O'DONNELL: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? KRISTOPHER NOTO MR. PROFACI: Nothing at this time. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mike, do you have anything you would like to add at this time? MR. DONNELLY: No. I stepped out but I assume you're going to have me write the ZBA referral letter for the three variances. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. I'll move to refer this to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a front yard variance on Route 52, it's required that they have a 60-foot setback and they're showing a 20; that on the front yard variance for Old South Plank Road, that's a B Zone, 40 is required and they're proposing 15 I believe. MR. DATES: Actually those were reversed. The South Plank is 15, Old South Plank is 20. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. And the minimum lot depth required is 125 and you're providing 70? MR. DATES: Correct. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. I'll move for that motion. MR. MENNERICH: So moved. KRISTOPHER NOTO MR. O'DONNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Ken Mennerich. I had a second by Ed O'Donnell. I'll ask for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself yes. So carried. MR. DONNELLY: Just so I have it clear in my letter, Route 52 is a 60 foot required and a 15 provided? MR. DATES: Correct. MR. DONNELLY: Old South Plank Road is a 40 required and 20 provided? MR. DATES: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: What did you say for Route 52, Mike? MR. DONNELLY: Route 52, 60 required, 15 provided. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And I had - MR. DONNELLY: You had it the other way KRISTOPHER NOTO too. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I had quoted 20 because in reading their plans, their plans say 20. MR. DATES: We have 15 off of South Plank and then 20 off of Old South Plank. MR. O'DONNELL: He's looking at your bulk table. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. MR. DATES: The bulk table did get switched. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: You're going to have to correct your bulk table. Thank you. MR. DATES: Once the ZBA gets the referral we can submit our application? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Right. Mr. Donnelly will make that available. MR. DATES: Great. Thank you. (Time noted: 8:27 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 87 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 LABORER'S LOCAL 17 6 (2005-41) 7 Little Britain Road Section 97; Block 1; Lot 40.2 8 R-3 Zone 9 -------------------------X SITE PLAN 11 12 Date: Time: Place: September 20, 2007 8:27 p.m. Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH 17 EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: JUSTIN DATES 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 LABORER'S LOCAL 17 CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The next item of business is Laborer's Local 17. It's located on Little Britain Road, it's Zoned R-3, it's a site plan. Justin, are you representing Andrew on this also? MR. DATES: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. MR. DATES: We've addressed all the consultants' comments at this point as well as the fire district comments regarding the fourteen-foot height of the pedestrian walkway. We've provided a fire hydrant for them as well as they requested. Actually, the one thing I think Karen did mention, she would like to see the same landscape treatment on the island near the fire hydrant, which we can accommodate. That's no problem. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen, we completed ARB on this. Mike, do you have a resolution? MR. DONNELLY: You did ARB on November 2nd. Yes, I have a resolution. LABORER'S LOCAL 17 CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Any comments from the Board Members. Cliff Browne? MR. BROWNE: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ed O'Donnell? MR. O'DONNELL: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mike, would you give us conditions for final site plan approval? MR. DONNELLY: Yes. This is a resolution for subdivision and site plan. ARB was already done in November. We'll need a sign-off letter from Karen because she has one open item from her September 14, 2007 memo. We will carry forth the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision as incorporated into this decision, and I think that decision is dated November 2, 2006. The applicant has obtained approval from the City of Newburgh to accept sewer flows from the project at its plant. This approval is hereby subject to full compliance with the conditions of that approval LABORER'S LOCAL 17 dated June 13, 2007 as if those conditions were set forth herein at length. There's a letter approval that has conditions. Have we heard from the jurisdictional fire department? MR. HINES: Yes. MR. DONNELLY: I'll take that one out. That leaves water main extension approval from the Orange County Department of Health. MR. HINES: No. MR. DONNELLY: It doesn't need Department of Health approval? MR. HINES: No. MR. DONNELLY: Does it need anything from the DEC? MR. HINES: No. It has the City of Newburgh sign off already. MR. DONNELLY: The Architectural Review Board provisions will be in the single resolution that will reflect the two dates. We had a shadow parking area if I recall correctly, did we not? MR. HINES: That's correct. LABORER'S LOCAL 17 MR. DONNELLY: The resolution will say the full parking was demonstrated as feasible and area is shown as not to be utilized at this time but the Town retains the right, in the event it becomes necessary, to require that that area be improved as a parking area. This will need a landscape security and an inspection fee. Does it need a stormwater - MR. HINES: Yes. MR. DONNELLY: --improvement and inspection fee? There were no water mains. Then the standard condition regarding the prohibition on the construction of any outdoor fixtures or amenities that are not shown on the site. You voted on November 2, 2006 to grant ARB approval. This would be for subdivision and site plan. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Comments from the Board Members. Cliff Browne? MR. O'DONNELL: Are there parkland fees associated with this? MR. DONNELLY: No. It's not residential. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Having heard the LABORER'S LOCAL 17 conditions for approval for Laborer's Local 17 presented for the site plan and subdivision located on Old Little Britain Road in the R-3 Zone, I would move for that motion. MR. PROFACI: So moved. MR. O'DONNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Joe Profaci. I have a second by Ed O'Donnell. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself. So carried. Thank you, Justin. MR. DATES: Great. Thank you very much. (Time noted: 8:33 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 2 3 4 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD -------------------------X In the Matter of 94 6 7 8 9 MICHAEL WEBER (2006-58) Mill Street Section 4; Block 1; Lot 27.7 RR Zone -------------------------X CONCEPTUAL SKETCH PLAN 11 12 13 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 8:33 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 16 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE KENNETH MENNERICH 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: JONATHAN CELLA 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 MICHAEL WEBER CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The next item of business we have is Michael Weber. It's a conceptual sketch plan located on Mill Street. It's in an RR Zone and it's being represented by Jonathan Cella. For those of you who don't know, Jonathan is now a PE. He passed his exam the last two months. MR. CELLA: This hasn't been here in awhile. It's a two-lot residential subdivision of 5 acres. It's located on Mill Street directly across from Old Mill Street. It has a common driveway serving the one existing house in the back and the same driveway will service the new home also. It's bound by the Thruway on the west and the State wetland on the south side --on the east side which we verified and was signed off by the New York State DEC. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Comments from our consultants were minor in nature. Pat Hines, Drainage Consultant. MR. HINES: I have a clean-up item on the separation distances. They meet the MICHAEL WEBER requirements, they just need to be labeled 200 foot rather than the 150 that's shown. Otherwise we would recommend a negative declaration and a public hearing. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant. MR. COCKS: Our only comment was that the common driveway maintenance agreement is going to need to be sent to Mike Donnelly. We had no other comments. Since this is in an RR Zone, it's a Type I action, we need to declare our intent for lead agency 30 days before we can make a determination. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Any comments from Board Members. Cliff Browne? MR. BROWNE: No. MR. MENNERICH: No. MR. O'DONNELL: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a motion to grant conceptual approval and declare our intent for lead agency for Michael Weber's two-lot subdivision located on Mill Street. MR. MENNERICH: So moved. MICHAEL WEBER MR. PROFACI: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Ken Mennerich. I have a second by Joe Profaci. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself yes. So carried. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: We can't take action on this until we hear back for 30 days because we have to declare our intent for lead agency. The Board has agreed we'll take this up under Board business on the 1st of November at which time we'll make a SEQRA determination and we'll set it up for the next available date for a public hearing. Again, we can't do anything sooner than that. MR. CELLA: Should we attend the November 1st --that's a continuation? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I don't think it's MICHAEL WEBER necessary. You may be on that agenda, I don't know. If not, Dina will notify you. MR. CELLA: Okay. Thank you. (Time noted: 8:36 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 99 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 LANDS OF BRYANT (2007-22) 6 74 Cronomer Heights Drive 7 Section 75; Block 1; Lot 46 R-3 Zone 8 -------------------------X 9 TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION 11 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 8:36 p.m. 12 Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12550 14 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: JONATHAN CELLA 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 LANDS OF BRYANT CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I believe you have one other item, that's the lands of Bryant. It's a two-lot subdivision located at 74 Cronomer Heights Drive in an R-3 Zone. MR. CELLA: Again there's one existing residence and we're subdividing the balance off on the north side of the parcel to an additional single-family residence. We redesigned the septic. We thought we would meet Pat's comments but he had an additional comment at this time. We feel that we can work this out with the Health Department or we were going to ask if we could install a curtain drain and have your office witness testing. One or the other. MR. HINES: I think the Health Department will ask that same thing. I feel more comfortable with them. The soils are marginal on the site. We saw that previously fill was placed in an effort to get those to work. The septic system was redesigned in a new location which identified ground water at the two-foot depth which is a little less than you can for a septic system. LANDS OF BRYANT We're recommending that the project move along with the negative declaration for preliminary approval so that the project can be submitted to the Health Department for their approval of the septic system. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant. MR. COCKS: The applicant has addressed all our previous comments. We have nothing further. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Cliff Browne, Planning Board Member? MR. BROWNE: Nothing. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: No questions. MR. PROFACI: No questions. MR. O'DONNELL: Nothing. I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a motion to declare a negative declaration for the lands of Bryant, a two-lot subdivision located on 74 Cronomer Heights Drive, and set it for the 1st of November for a public hearing. MR. PROFACI: So moved. LANDS OF BRYANT MR. O'DONNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Joe Profaci. I have a second by Ed O'Donnell. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself yes. So carried. Thank you. (Time noted: 8:40 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 104 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 LEON ORZECHOWSKI SUBDIVISION 6 (2005-59) 7 Extension of Preliminary Approval 8 -------------------------X 9 BOARD BUSINESS 11 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 8:40 p.m. 12 Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12550 14 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 22 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 LEON ORZECHOWSKI SUBDIVISION CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: There are just a few items of Board business. We received a letter from Gerald Zimmerman dated the 6th of September 2007. We represent Leon Orzechowski, subdivision 2005-59. They received approval which expires on the 21st of this month. They are asking for a six- month extension to the 21st of March 2008. I'll move for that motion. Any questions? MR. MENNERICH: 2007; right? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: 2008. I made that correction. That was a typo. MR. O'DONNELL: So moved. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Ed O'Donnell. Do I have a second? MR. PROFACI: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a second by Joe Profaci. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. LEON ORZECHOWSKI SUBDIVISION MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself. So carried. (Time noted: 8:41 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 107 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 MARTIN VANDYK 6 (2005-22) 7 Extension of Final Approval 8 -------------------------X 9 BOARD BUSINESS 11 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 8:41 p.m. 12 Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12550 14 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 22 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Would someone like to read the letter from --I don't have it --Ken Lytle for VanDyk? MR. O'DONNELL: "Dear Planning Board, I'm writing this letter to request a six-month extension for the approval of this site plan, which is the lands of Martin VanDyk, for final plan review approval by the Town of Newburgh Planning Board on March 15, 2007. This approval will expire on September 15th. Our request would extend the approval to March 15, 2008. Please give my office written notification of your decision. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me to discuss this matter. Thank you in advance for your kindly consideration, Ken Lytle." CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a motion to grant a six-month extension for the lands of VanDyk as read into the minutes by Planning Board Member Ed O'Donnell. MR. MENNERICH: So moved. MR. O'DONNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Ken Mennerich. I have a second by Ed O'Donnell. I'll ask for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself. So carried. (Time noted: 8:42 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 111 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 STONY BROOK ASSOCIATES 6 (2007-16) 7 Referral to the Orange County Planning Department 8 -------------------------X 9 BOARD BUSINESS 11 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 8:42 p.m. 12 Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12550 14 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 22 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 STONY BROOK ASSOCIATES CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: We received a letter from Bryant Cocks dated September 10, 2007 in reference to Stony Brook Association, our Planning Board file number 2007-16. He was approached by the applicant's representative to refer this to the Orange County Planning Department. That's normally a motion that the Board makes, so at this point - Bryant, you referred that; correct? MR. COCKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Do you remember the date you referred that? It's in your letter I think. MR. COCKS: September 7th. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a motion that we acknowledge that the 200 Stony Brook Court Association had been referred to the Orange County Planning Department on September 7th. MR. MENNERICH: So moved. MR. PROFACI: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by STONY BROOK ASSOCIATES Ken Mennerich. I have a second by Joe Profaci. I'll ask for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself. So carried. (Time noted: 8:43 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 115 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 SPOONER SUBDIVISION 6 (2005-52) 7 Further processing of application by 8 the Planning Board 9 -------------------------X BOARD BUSINESS 11 Date: September 20, 2007 12 Time: 8:43 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh 13 Town Hall 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman 16 CLIFFORD C. BROWNE KENNETH MENNERICH 17 EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 19 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES 21 KAREN ARENT 22 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 SPOONER SUBDIVISION CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: We received a letter from Mike Donnelly in reference to the Spooner Subdivision as it relates to the lawsuit I guess. Mike, do you want to bring us along? MR. DONNELLY: The Spooner Subdivision, if I understand it correctly, and I'll ask Bryant to correct me if I'm wrong, was in the same area of the Town that had been rezoned from R-3 to R-1 or R-2? R-1 I think. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: R-1. MR. DONNELLY: As a result this applicant was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for --he may have been referred I think before that for a variance, but after they received the variance the rezoning occurred and they realized they had to either get another variance or change the plan. It came to Daniel Bloom's attention, the attorney for the applicant, that the lawsuit had, at least for the time being, undone that rezoning. Therefore, the Spooner Subdivision is back to where it was and therefore I think should be put back on the agenda and review should continue including the SPOONER SUBDIVISION holding of a public hearing. You issued a negative declaration on July 20, 2006. So when it fits in the agenda I think you should schedule it for a public hearing. It's a two-lot subdivision. I don't think it has any particular issues other than the zoning issue that kind of caught it from around the ankles for a brief period. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Discussion from Board Members. Cliff Browne? MR. BROWNE: That seems appropriate. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken? MR. MENNERICH: How come they don't fall under that group that's still under discussion? MR. DONNELLY: The Town has been telling everyone who thought that the area was rezoned that they don't need variances. There were a number of these before the Zoning Board at the time. In terms of Exiter and - MR. MENNERICH: Drury Heights. MR. DONNELLY: --Drury Heights, I think the reason why they were treated differently is because of the pending lawsuit, SPOONER SUBDIVISION the parties thought it was fair that they would have a status quo agreement, meaning that the Town wouldn't try to rezone again without giving due notice to those applicants and those applicants wouldn't ask for any final approvals without giving due notice to the Town. I know what that leads to but some day it's going to be off to the races to see what happens. I still think the appeals will be heard this fall, probably in October, and I don't think either applicant is going to get their other agency approvals until some time after that. Those needs for the status quo don't exist for anybody else who owns a house or property in that area of the Town, they are simply back to the zoning that existed before the Town rezoned because the court has declared that rezoning impermissible. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Question. We're reviewing Berlin, L.L.C. as a B Zone now. If I hear what you're saying, we should be reviewing Berlin, L.L.C. as an IB Zone. MR. DONNELLY: Was that part of that same law? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Yeah. SPOONER SUBDIVISION MR. DONNELLY: I would have to look at the decision. I think the law only - CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: You're the lawyer but the rezoning took into effect both residential and commercial rezoning. My question to you is do we go back to Berlin, L.L.C., which now their site plan may or may not comply, and we say to these guys hey guys, redraw it now. That's been before us since this argument. MR. DONNELLY: Let me look at Judge Slobod's order because it may be that because the applicant only --the challengers only looked to reverse the law insofar it rezoned the R-3 to R-1 that the judgment does not reverse the entire local law, just that part of it. I wasn't aware at the time. I'll have to look at that order and see what the effect is. MR. MENNERICH: I guess I wasn't aware we had an order. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Did we get an order, I mean that that was the judge's decision? MR. DONNELLY: It was reduced to a judgment. I'll have to look at the exact terms of the judgment. Certainly insofar as it SPOONER SUBDIVISION affected the residentially zoned areas, the local law has been declared invalid and therefore they return to their former R-3 status. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Any additional comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a motion to set the Spooner Subdivision for a public hearing for the 1st of November. Dina, would you make a note of speaking with Bill Hilder tomorrow? At the same time Bryant will have to - Dina will get a hold of the assessor's office. MR. BROWNE: So moved. MR. O'DONNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Cliff Browne and a second by Ed O'Donnell. I'll ask for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself. So SPOONER SUBDIVISION carried. Dina, make up a brief note, two things we have to keep in mind, the Board business for Weber and also this public hearing. MS. HAINES: Okay. (Time noted: 8:47 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 122 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 THE MARKET PLACE 6 (2004-54) 7 Applicant's request to attend the 8 consultants' meeting on 9/25/07 9 -------------------------X BOARD BUSINESS 11 Date: September 20, 2007 12 Time: 8:47 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh 13 Town Hall 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman 16 CLIFFORD C. BROWNE KENNETH MENNERICH 17 EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 19 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES 21 KAREN ARENT 22 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 THE MARKET PLACE CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Regarding the consultants' meeting, we received a request from --I can't remember the attorney. The attorney for Bob Wilder, the in-house attorney. MR. DONNELLY: Deborah Post. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Deborah Post requesting that the consultants review the new Market Place subdivision and provide the consultants' comments for the up and coming September 25th work session. Number one, I think the Board would have to move to set The Market Place subdivision up for a work session on the 25th of September and also a motion to approve that our consultants provide their comments at that meeting on September 25th. Is the Board in favor of that? MR. O'DONNELL: So moved. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Ed O'Donnell. Do I have a second? MR. PROFACI: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? MR. MENNERICH: It's just the THE MARKET PLACE subdivision, not site plan? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The site plan is what they are currently --that we already agreed upon. MR. MENNERICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Joe Profaci, a second by Ken Mennerich. MR. PROFACI: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The motion was by Ed O'Donnell, second by Joe Profaci and discussion by Ken Mennerich. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself. So carried. (Time noted: 8:48 p.m.) (Time resumed: 9:02 p.m. Also Present: Robert Wilder) THE MARKET PLACE CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bob, we motioned and we agreed to set the subdivision up for part of the consultants' meeting on the 25th and that the consultants will also have the review ready on the 25th. Okay? MR. WILDER: Thank you. Did you also mention the purpose of that is so the Board can then direct us to go to the ZBA, because as I think everyone knows - MR. DONNELLY: It's certainly the first step. MR. WILDER: --the overall site plan conforms with the ordinance. When you start subdividing it into parcels they don't - The second part of that was I think we requested that we be able to also be put in front of the ZBA for the sign variance. Did that come up? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: No. Again, at this particular point in time it's not on the table. We didn't receive anything for it. I didn't get any correspondence, so all we're acting on is the subdivision. MR. WILDER: So we didn't submit THE MARKET PLACE 126 something for the signage? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: No. At this point we're not going to change what we have on the table, okay? MR. WILDER: The Board would then send us to the ZBA for the subdivision? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I would assume. MR. WILDER: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The important part of me bringing this up and having the Board decide is because what you're hearing tonight, it grows and it grows and it grows. With Dina I'm filtering all this correspondence and I'm saying to myself some days who's driving the ship, and then I realize that we drive the ship, okay. So do we want to do it or do we not. They propose to say you do this, the other guy, whatever his name is, you do that and eventually I say you know, we'll let you know where it comes from. I always say the Planning Board directs the activity. (Time noted: 9:05 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 128 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS 6 (2006-32) 7 Extension of Preliminary Approval 8 -------------------------X 9 BOARD BUSINESS 11 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 8:48 p.m. 12 Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12550 14 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 22 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The last one under Board business, Jerry Canfield would like to meet with Newburgh Retail Developers on the 25th for a consultants' meeting to review the Chili's site plan and fast tracking of what will be in place when it's time to issue a certificate of occupancy as it relates to the approved site plan. I would move for a motion to set Newburgh Retail Developers up for the consultants' meeting on the 25th. MR. O'DONNELL: So moved. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Ed O'Donnell. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? MR. BROWNE: What do they refer to as fast tracking when they talk about this type of thing? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: It's like a common term in construction. It means they want the inspections - MR. HINES: Often times when they leave here and you're giving them approval, the week NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS before they're at the building department trying to slip their building plans in, or if they're not the complete building plans they're footing and foundation plans they're trying to get approval for. There are other things --the architects are out there designing plans. There are issues this time of year when if you start a project you need to get the concrete in the ground so you can continue constructing through the cold weather, otherwise --you could pour concrete in cold weather but you have to use specialized concrete additives and - MR. BROWNE: Does this mean that Jerry is obligated to get people out there in a certain time to inspect things when they say they're ready for it or that kind of stuff? MR. HINES: I think they're working towards that and trying to come up with that process. It's not uncommon. MR. DONNELLY: It helps Jerry's office. MR. HINES: We'll work with you and you work with us. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: What Jerry is concerned about is in accommodating with this NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS fast tracking, what happens when you're reaching the finish line as it relates to the overall site plan, what's going to be in place when these people want a certificate of occupancy. That's where it really becomes - MR. HINES: This is tougher because the Chili's is on the open side of the site from both access points. It's out of the way so there needs to be some definition of what parking lots are going to be there, what access roads, what water and sewer and drainage improvements. MR. BROWNE: They're requesting it now to sit down with Jerry and - CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Jerry wants to sit down with them and find out when Chili's comes in looking for a C of O, this is what I want to see in place or what do you propose to put in place and see if it's agreeable. MR. BROWNE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: So I had a motion by Ed O'Donnell. I had a second by Ken Mennerich. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll ask for a roll NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself. Bryant, you'll notify the Newburgh Retail Developers as far as the time? MR. COCKS: Yes. (Time noted: 8:52 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 134 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 5 PATRICK HINES 6 7 Discussion regarding MS-4 8 -------------------------X 9 BOARD BUSINESS 10 Date: September 20, 2007 11 Time: 8:53 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh 12 Town Hall 1496 Route 300 13 Newburgh, NY 12550 14 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman 15 CLIFFORD C. BROWNE KENNETH MENNERICH 16 EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. JOSEPH E. PROFACI 17 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. 19 BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES 20 KAREN ARENT 21 22 -------------------------X 23 MICHELLE L. CONERO 10 Westview Drive 24 Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 25 BOARD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Do you have a few minutes? I want Pat Hines to really go over with us what's happening with drainage. I think what I see is as an example the Shops at Union Square, they're putting in both a detention pond and they're putting in chambers; correct? MR. HINES: Well, no. That is an example. They started out with an under pipe storage system, and it was approved utilizing that. They had issues regarding the cost of the property. Land becomes more and more costly foreseeing commercial developments utilizing alternative designs to not put detention ponds in. If you're paying $150,000 an acre and you need a half an acre detention pond, you're tying up $70,000 or $75,000 just in land and it impacts your bulk table, land you're not using. Lowe's did it. Several other sites we see before us are doing it. That project worked out an agreement with Milano to increase the size of his detention pond to allow for the water quality and quantity benefits over there. You're going to see more and more of that. It's allowed in the guidelines BOARD BUSINESS for storage. If you do the under parking you can store the water under there but there's very little treatment for water quality, so you'll see them put in vortechnic devices, things to take the sediment out and such. All of those are very expensive and high maintenance whereas these detention ponds work on gravity and are lower maintenance. The other issue that in talking with John we're hearing people say the word MS-4 a lot. We keep hearing that. I wanted to bring the Board along on what that is. The MS-4 is a Town requirement. It's municipal separate storm sewer systems. It's a permit that in 2003 the Town applied for that had a five-year timeframe to complete. We're nearing the end of that. The Town is in pretty good shape with that. When we hear the public telling us does this comply with the MS-4 regulations, those regulations aren't for projects. The projects fall under a different permit, the DEC stormwater SPDES permits which are a separate set of regulations so they're not entertainable. The Town's MS-4 permit has six BOARD BUSINESS requirements that they're looking to meet, a public notice requirement that they do every year and I appear before the Town Board and address the public comment period on where they are at with the other five measures. The other is a public education and outreach program where we periodically stock up the outside here with some pamphlets and such, provide notifications on the Town website for stormwater related activities. There's a link to the DEC website I believe. There's not a lot -a lot of the towns aren't doing it. DEC thought the towns were going to get together and have seminars and do training for that. That's not happening at the town level. I would assume no one would come if we probably had a stormwater education night. There's several faces I could picture here. The other requirement under the MS-4 program the Town has to have is a discharge detection program. The highway department has sent several of their staff out there to be trained in that. I am currently finishing up the revisions to your local ordinance. You had one BOARD BUSINESS early on. You were one of the first communities to have stormwater management regulations. As a matter of fact, the DEC's model ordinance, they stole pieces of your regulation because you were one of the few municipalities out there that had one. We're adjusting that regulation to comply with --the DEC came out with a model ordinance and said you can adopt the model or you can go through a whole bunch of other hoops and prove yours is equal. Most of the towns are now adopting the model. We went to a lot of the towns we represent and gave them stormwater management ordinances thinking that would be the easy thing to do first. Three years into the program DEC said here's the model you have to use. We're playing catch up with a lot of municipalities. You're doing it all anyway right now. Between your stormwater ordinance, the SPDES permit ordinance, the design guidelines for erosion control and the stormwater management guidelines we have we're in compliance. We're catching up with the regulations. The other requirement is construction of stormwater management. We do that on a BOARD BUSINESS day-to-day basis, routine basis here when we're reviewing the plans. We're making sure they comply with the stormwater design guideline. This is the third version of this that came out in the five years so far. The New York erosion and sediment control guidelines, a new version just came out. I grabbed the wrong one. They updated those requirements. This book tells if you're using silt fence you can only have 300 feet tributary to it or if you're using hay bails they're only good for a certain amount of time. There are details in here. You're doing that. Post-construction stormwater management, you're leaps and bounds ahead of every town because you have your stormwater inspection program where representatives of my office go out and make sure things are constructed. A lot of towns aren't doing that. You're ahead of that. We have a system in place where during construction they review and post- construction. We're requiring notes on the plans and making sure the site plan has enforceable notes for the Town to do that. The other issue is good housekeeping BOARD BUSINESS for municipalities. We're doing training. We have some DVDs and such that we're sending to the various town departments that we represent. They are watching those and getting credit for that. One of the things you'll see that we're working on is a mapping of the stormwater infrastructure. Under this first five-year term the towns that are MS-4 communities had to map their stormwater out, just the outfalls. The next phase of this is they are going to come back and say you have to map the entire system. The people in my office that run the GPS are working with the highway department. You'll see the highway guys out there with backpacks on or GPSs collecting that data right now, and that's all being entered into a map as a base map for the program. The MS-4 designation, a lot of the Town is in that. They took census tracts, which is an --I forget, the census bureau comes up with census tracts that say if you have more than a thousand people in that per square mile in that census track you're in MS-4. Some of the towns --obviously the Town of Newburgh has a lot of BOARD BUSINESS areas like that. There are portions of the Town that aren't. The entire Town is not an MS-4 designation. We're treating it like it is because those boundaries correspond to roadways and cross municipal boundaries. That's how you become an MS-4. The words are --they are used the same. The stormwater permit and the MS-4 are used the same but I tried to clarify that. The MS-4 is a town program where the stormwater SPDES permit is put on these applicants. DEC is forcing the towns through the towns MS-4 program to make sure that they are putting the burden for requiring on the plans and the outside checks and balances are becoming more and more on the towns. I know you get those questions sometimes, what's an MS-4. MR. DONNELLY: What other communities are? Monroe, Warwick? MR. HINES: A lot of them. I have seven, actually eight now, Town of Wawayanda, Town of Newburgh, Town of New Windsor, Town of Cornwall. It's portions of those. Blooming Grove, Washingtonville, the Town of Wawayanda. MR. DONNELLY: Not the west? BOARD BUSINESS MR. HINES: Town of Wallkill is. It's interesting because the Town of Wawayanda quite frankly is an MS-4 community because of the City of Middletown census tract. Only the New Hampton portion of the town really has the population. Because of the way the census tracts are drawn, they ignore municipal boundaries and cross lines. They put that burden on the town. When we first started this we represented the Town of Mamakating and because the City of Middletown census tract went up into Sullivan County and there was a 400-acre parcel of woods in the Town of Mamakating, I tried to get a waiver for them to get out and the DEC told them the waiver was harder than the program. (Time noted: 9:02 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007 1 144 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 PATRICK HINES 6 Discussion regarding drainage 7 8 -------------------------X 9 BOARD BUSINESS 11 Date: September 20, 2007 Time: 9:05 p.m. 12 Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 13 1496 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12550 14 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman CLIFFORD C. BROWNE 16 KENNETH MENNERICH EDWARD T. O'DONNELL, JR. 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 22 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 BOARD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I just want to refer to drainage. It's becoming so technical now, the chambers and everything. MR. HINES: It often looks very complicated but this is kind of cookbook. You select your treatment method and it will walk you through. It's a matter of people's clients telling them this costs too much. We have a list of mistakes we look for in our office. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Where are we going with the one on Willela Place? That was the first chamber in a residential project. MR. HINES: Not only a residential project. I think it has to come back here. Darren Doce is in a catch 22. It doesn't show up on the agenda so I'm not working on it. I think I'm going to recommend it come back to the Board. I did a presentation to the Town Board in favor of that, or at least telling them that it will work. Now they're changing it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Again? MR. HINES: Yeah. They want to change the size of the chambers. I probably have been sitting on it for two months because it hasn't BOARD BUSINESS been on the agenda. I think if it comes back I'll tell Darren it has to come back before the Board, and Town Board because they were the ones that said yes, you can put underground chambers in the Town right-of-way and now they're coming back saying when you approve we would like to change --I heard they hit bedrock out there. Something changed out there, or they might have calculated the cost. The underground chambers are expensive and they're labor intensive to put in. You have to fill them with stone, get rid of the dirt that came out of the hole. So there's a big cost involved. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Listening to you speak, and again just conversation, I would imagine their conditional final approval may have even expired. It's been that many months since we granted them that and you're saying they're still working it out. MR. HINES: I'm not sure if it was conditional or if it was final. They are under construction. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: They were under construction. BOARD BUSINESS MR. HINES: They called a time out and wanted to come back. They said we have this little change and I looked at it and said this isn't a little change, I need deep testing and soil testing. They want to put individual seepage pits on each of the lots. I don't know if they are transferring that burden over as they sell the lots. It's very hard to make sure it gets done if they're selling lots and having individual homeowners build it. How do you know they're really putting the seepage pits in? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: If you think it's more than just a field change, - MR. HINES: It is. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: --for the benefit of everyone you ought to have someone resubmit. MR. HINES: I think it needs to go back to the Town Board. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I would like to thank you all. I'll move for a motion to close the Planning Board meeting of September 20th. BOARD BUSINESS MR. PROFACI: So moved. MR. O'DONNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Joe Profaci and a second by Ed O'Donnell. I'll ask for a roll call vote starting with Cliff Browne. MR. BROWNE: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. O'DONNELL: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself. So carried. (Time noted: 9:10 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: October 1, 2007