TOWN OF WARWICK PLANNING BOARD November 3, 2004

Transcription

1 TOWN OF WARWICK PLANNING BOARD November 3, 2004 Members present: Chairman, Benjamin Astorino Bob Bogdanski, Al Buckbee Brian Fisher, Carl Singer Zen Wojcik, Tectonic Engineering J. Theodore Fink, Greenplan John Bollenbach, Board Attorney The regular meeting of the Town of Warwick Planning Board was held Wednesday, November 3, 2004, at the Town Hall, 132 Kings Highway, Warwick, New York. Chairman, Benjamin Astorino called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Astorino: Before we start the agenda for tonight, I just wanted to let everyone know that our Planning Board agendas and minutes are now posted on the Town of Warwick website. We have a handout here if anybody wants that. It gives you instructions on how to access the agendas and minutes. Public Hearing of Tom Dougherty Application for site plan approval and special use permit for the use of a Class 2 Home Occupation of a landscaping business; situated on tax parcel S 34 B 2 L 1.22, property located at 13 Lakeview Drive, in the RU zone, of the Town of Warwick, County of Orange, State of New York. Representing the applicant: Tom Dougherty, the applicant. The following review comments submitted by Tectonic: (See attached) Comment #1: Board to discuss SEQR. Mr. Fink: The applicant has provided the Planning Board with a short EAF. It is an Unlisted Action. The Planning Board has already declared Lead Agency on this application. Comment #2: Applicant to discuss project. Tom Dougherty: I am applying for a Class 2, so that I could park my trucks and trailer. Comment #3: Applicant to pay outstanding review fees. Tom Dougherty: Ok. Mr. Astorino: Do any Board members have any questions or comments? Mr. Singer: Could you tell me how many employees you have? Tom Dougherty: 2 employees. Mr. Singer: 2 employees besides yourself? Tom Dougherty: Yes.

2 Page 2 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Singer: How many vehicles do you park on the property at night? Tom Dougherty: Just the trucks. Mr. Singer: How many trucks? Tom Dougherty: 2 trucks. Mr. Singer: What about the trailer? Tom Dougherty: Yes, also the trailer. Mr. Singer: Is that in addition to the 2 trucks? Tom Dougherty: Yes. Mr. Singer: So, there are 3 vehicles. Tom Dougherty: That is if you want to call the trailer a vehicle. Mr. Singer: Do you store any materials used in the business outdoors? Tom Dougherty: No. We have the gasoline for the lawnmowers. That is located in the trailer. Mr. Singer: Is there anything stored in the back on the grass? Tom Dougherty: No. There are no chemicals or anything like that. Mr. Singer: Do you store any equipment outside? Tom Dougherty: Just the plow for the truck. That is located by the shed. Mr. Singer: Nothing else? Tom Dougherty: No. Mr. Singer: I am a little concerned about the screening between you and your neighbors, is there screening between your house and the Sienfield s property? Tom Dougherty: There is a fence and a tree. Mr. Singer: Does the fence start down the road, so that it hides your driveway or does it start in the back? Tom Dougherty: It starts about halfway down the driveway. It then goes down about 45-feet before the property ends in the back. Mr. Singer: What about on the other side of the property? Tom Dougherty: There are trees located there. There are approximately 2 or 3 trees located between the property.

3 Page 3 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Singer: 2 or 3 trees is not good screening. Tom Dougherty: They are large trees. Mr. Astorino: Carl, do you have the pictures? Mr. Singer: Yes. Do your employees service any of the equipment on the premises? Tom Dougherty: No. Mr. Astorino: Do any other Board members have any comments? This is a public hearing. If there is anyone in the audience wishing to address the Tom Dougherty application, please rise and state your name for the record. Robert Barclay: Mr. Dougherty has stated that he has 2 trucks. He has 3 trucks. He states that he has 1 trailer. He has 2 trailers. He states that he has 2 employees. I have seen more employees. I have seen that he does service work on his vehicles and equipment at his property. My property abuts his property. I do not know what is going on with any of this stuff. If he is applying for this, is there any law or ordinance that says he should not be doing it now? If there is, why has not anyone been enforcing it? This has been an ongoing problem. I have been in touch with the Building Inspector. Mr. Astorino: That is why he is before the Planning Board now because of the violation. Robert Barclay: Ok. If he is granted this, what happens if he decides to trade in his truck for a bulldozer? Will that be on the property? Mr. Astorino: The Planning Board can give restrictions as to what can be parked there and what limitations. Robert Barclay: Could they limit the number of vehicles? Mr. Bollenbach: Yes. Mr. Singer: I believe that the code states that only 1 vehicle is allowed on the property for the use of the business. Mr. Bollenbach: Not for a Class 2. Ted, do you want to take a look at that? Mr. Fink: Yes. Mr. Bogdanski: Could I ask you a question? Robert Barclay: Yes. Mr. Bogdanski: Am I sensing correctly that you are not opposed to the application but the magnitude of the application?

4 Page 4 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Robert Barclay: The problem is that I am opposed to the application. The reason why is that this is already going on. This is a residential neighborhood. You are not seeing what I am seeing. I see many trucks, hear many noises. I hear the equipment and see the people coming and going. I see the snowplow in the driveway. This is obviously a business. There are 2 trailers not 1 trailer. There is a closed trailer and an opened trailer. He has a dump truck and 2 pickup trucks. There is a lot of equipment there. This is something that I feel does not belong in my neighborhood. I have a business. You do not see my business, trucks, or anything. This is a residential neighborhood. It should stay that way. Mr. Bogdanski: As far as the residence that is there, thank you for the clarification. I believe that the code does allow this occupation within this zone or we would not be here with this application. Robert Barclay: I understand that you are allowing it, but to what limits? Mr. Astorino: That is why we are having the public hearing. Robert Barclay: That is what I want to know. Will I be back here in another year because he is going for a different one because he was caught doing something else? Mr. Astorino: There are limitations as to what could be done in this zone. That is why we want to hear the public s concerns to make our decision. Robert Barclay: Ok. Mr. Astorino: Is there anyone else wishing to address the Tom Dougherty application? Charles Neiman: I have a problem with the noise. The machinery is serviced and taken care of there. Tom was out there the other day changing tires with an air gun. Tom and I have been at this before about the noise. This is nothing new. Their vehicles come home and people come out running their lawnmowers an hour or two a night. I understand that the stuff has to be worked on. I do not have a problem with the stuff being worked on but not in a residential area. I cannot sit out on my deck in the summertime because of the noise. Phyllis Neiman: There is a fence directly between our properties. I paid to have that fence put up. He has 3 or 4 snowplows that he keeps behind his garage which I see. I pull into my driveway and see a giant truck with a giant royal blue tarp over it. I see his plows behind his driveway where he does not see them. I see them. I put up a 6- foot fence. That is all that I am allowed to put up. It cost me that much money because I do not want to look at this. I bought this house. The property that I bought will be devalued. Who will want to buy my house if they will be living next door to all of this? You buy a house on 2-acres because you do not want to be looking at all of this. If I wanted to live in a nonresidential area, my house would have cost $100,000. less. In that case, I would have then accepted the fact that I live in a commercial area. I just bought this house 3 years ago. I do not want to live in a commercial area. Charles Neiman: I am not looking to deprive anyone from making a living. Do not misunderstand me. There are ways to go around it to go and put your stuff. There are places that you could rent in a commercial area to store your equipment and service your stuff. I am not looking to put this person out of business. He has a family to take care of. I need a little respect for myself on my side. Right now, if I go to sell my house, I would not be able to sell it. Nobody wants to buy a house next to a business in a residential area. I do not think that it should be there. Mr. Bogdanski: For purpose of clarification, you mentioned a fence. Are you resident #3?

5 Page 5 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Phyllis Neiman: Yes. Mr. Astorino: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to address the Tom Dougherty application? Charles Cresseveur: I live at XX Lakeview Drive. I do oppose this. We have been residents of Lakeview Drive for almost 20 years. It is a residential neighborhood. It is a beautiful place to bring up children. Children play up and down that block all of the time. That is my main concern. Having commercial vehicles and the traffic going up and down, someone will get hurt. There are numerous commercial vehicles on this property. There is a dump truck, 2 pickup trucks, and a couple of trailers located there. There is a car always parked out front which I believe belongs to the employees. The noise, I do hear. I am one house away. I hear the noise. I strongly oppose this. That is why we moved up to Warwick. As they have just mentioned, if I wanted to move into a commercial neighborhood, I would have saved myself a couple hundred thousand dollars. I did not. I work long and hard for the home that we have now. I do not want to see my property devalue. Mr. Astorino: You mentioned the trucks coming and going, is that all day? Charles Cresseveur: No. I recently retired. I have now gone back to work. While I was retired, I did notice that they leave in the morning. I did see their dump truck go up and down a few times. It is not constant all day long. Mr. Astorino: Basically, you see them leave to a job then come back. Charles Cresseveur: Right. If the permit does go through, if he has this many vehicles there now, I am not sure what this permit will limit him to. It sounds like he has already exceeded his limit without a permit. If he has done so now, what is to say that you give him the permit and he does not escalate? Mr. Astorino: That would be an enforcement issue. He would be cited. The police and the building inspector would get involved and shut him down by pulling the permit away from him. Charles Cresseveur: To my understanding, and what I have heard, people have already complained about it. Nothing has been done. Mr. Bogdanski: That is quite erroneous. I think that it was explained to you, that because of the complaints the building inspector went out and issued a violation. That is why this individual is making this application. To say that nothing has been done, I am telling you for the record, is simply erroneous. Charles Cresseveur: It is a little difficult to hear back there. I did not hear everything that was said up here. We are opposed. Thank you. Mr. Astorino: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to address the Tom Dougherty application? James Houman: I live at XX Lakeview Drive. I am not opposed of the man making a living. I have a construction company myself. What I am opposed to is the amount of trucks that are there and the noise. I am trying to sell my house. I have had many concerns with real estate agents saying what is this next door? Is this a business being run? My house has been on the market since April. There has been no sale. I am concerned about it. I am not opposed to anyone trying to make a living. I run a company. I rent space to keep all of my stuff so that there is nothing on my property. I think that it should be the same way. Why should someone in a residential area be allowed to run a company? There are many places where you could rent space. It is not expensive. We all do it. If it becomes a cost factor, then you would raise your rates accordingly. It is a part of doing business.

6 Page 6 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Astorino: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to address the Tom Dougherty application? Let the record show no further public comment. Mr. Fink: I have a few answers for you. There are a couple parts of the code that apply to this particular use. The way that the zoning regulations were designed, when the Town Board prepared them a few years ago, was to try to insure giving a lot of flexibility in a home occupation. This was for people to be able to start up a business in their own home. If that home occupation reached a certain level and exceeded certain thresholds that had the potential to cause land use in-capabilities and problems with neighbors, there had to be some limitations on that. Landscape contractors where one of the uses that were prohibited within the code, unless a special use permit was granted. That is why the applicant is before us today. Section (a) 11 states that the following uses are specifically prohibited from consideration as permitted home occupations under this chapter because of parking requirements and other issues of land use compatibility. It goes on to say that there are certain uses that may be permitted subject to the special use permit requirements of I think that we should go through those and see exactly what that says. In one of the uses, it is a landscape contractor with any employees or more than one vehicle used in a landscape business. If you were a landscape contractor and all that you had was just a pickup truck in the backyard with no employees, then you would not need the special use permit. As soon as you have more than one vehicle parked there, you will need the special use permit. Before I get there, there are other prohibitions in the home occupation section, which is Section One of which is that there should be no outdoor display of goods, outdoor storage of materials, or outdoor storage of equipment used in conjunction with a home occupation. That is a prohibition. It is a limitation within the home occupation section of the code. Another prohibition, not more than one person, outside the members of the household occupying the dwelling, shall be employed on the residential premises in the conduct of the home occupation. Additional off-street parking shall be provided for the employee. As far as the standards, these are generally the considerations for the issuance of special use permits E. In permitting any special use, the Planning Board shall take into consideration the public health, safety and general welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general in the Town and of the immediate neighborhood in particular. The Planning Board shall also take into strict account the standards for review and design set forth in H as well as the special conditions set forth in H and elsewhere in this chapter. The Planning Board may require modifications to development proposals, submission of alternative design and layout proposals, and may attach reasonable conditions and safeguards to eliminate or minimize potential impacts as a precondition of its approval. Before making a decision on whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove a special use permit, the Planning Board shall give specific consideration to the following: There are 12 of them. I think that it would be useful if we went through most of these. Mr. Fisher: Ted, before you get to that, I have a question. I do not know if there were any changes in the code. In Section (11), apparently this is to make sure from what I see is truly what is still in the code. Uses that have been identified with a * or uses that do not exceed the thresholds provided, may be permitted as Class 2 home occupations, subject to the special use permit requirements of Is that what you have? Mr. Fink: Yes. That is correct. Mr. Fisher: Maybe this is my interpretation. Carl and members of the Board, please let me know if I am interpreting this correctly. The uses that have been identified under the * symbol or uses that do not exceed the thresholds provided, may be permitted as Class 2 home occupations. Are we basically saying here that as long as the landscaping contractor does not have any employees or more than one vehicle that they could have it as a Class 2 business? Mr. Fink: No.

7 Page 7 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Fisher: Are we saying that because there is an asterisk, we can allow it as a Class 2 business but need to make sure that certain restrictions are taking care of, according to ? Mr. Fink: Correct. Mr. Fisher: I just wanted to make sure. Mr. Astorino: Ted, do you want to run through that list of specific considerations? Mr. Fink: Yes. (1) Traffic access: All proposed traffic access ways shall be adequate but not excessive in number, adequate in width, grade, and alignment and visibility, and sufficiently separated from street intersections and other places of public assembly, and shall meet other similar safety considerations. (2) Parking. Adequate off-street parking and loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with , to prevent parking in public streets of the vehicles of any persons connected with or visiting the site. That is all that applies on that one. These apply generally to all of the special use permits that originate in the Town. I will not read through everything if it does not apply to this application. (3) Circulation. This applies to shopping centers or things like that. That is the interior circulation system. It does not apply to this application. (4) Landscaping and screening. This does apply. All parking and service areas shall be reasonably screened at all seasons of the year from the view of adjacent residential lots and streets and the general landscaping of the site shall be in character with that generally prevailing in the neighborhood. Existing trees 12 inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh) shall be preserved to the maximum extent practical. Roadside plantings shall be in conformance with the recommendations of the Town Shade Tree Commission and/or consistent with the Town of Warwick Design Guidelines. I do not think that there were any trees or anything like that proposed? Has there been any? Tom Dougherty: No. Mr. Fink: (5) Character and appearance. The character and appearance of the proposed use, buildings, structures, outdoor signs and lighting shall be in general harmony with the character and appearance of the surrounding neighborhood and that of the Town of Warwick, and shall not adversely affect the general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Warwick, such recommendation to be made by the Town's Architectural Review Board with reference to the Town of Warwick Design Guidelines, and the signage and lighting regulations of and respectively. As far as this is concerned, were you planning any construction? Tom Dougherty: No. Mr. Fink: (6) Historic and natural resources. The proposed use shall be designed and shall be carried out in a manner that protects historic and natural environmental features on the site. Since there is no construction, I do not think that would apply. (7) Level of service. The level of services required to support the proposed activity or use is or will be available to meet the needs of the proposed activity or use. This consideration shall include the suitability of water supply and sanitary sewage facilities to accommodate the intended use, and protection from pollution of surface or groundwater. Do your employees use your facilities at all? Tom Dougherty: No. Mr. Fink: What is the nature? Tom Dougherty: They just come in the morning and leave when they are done.

8 Page 8 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Fink: Ok. Can you go out into the vehicles that are parked on your site? Tom Dougherty: Yes. I also let them go out and do other things besides work with the truck. Mr. Fink: As far as toilet facilities or anything like that, do they use? Tom Dougherty: No. Nobody goes into the house. Mr. Fink: Ok. I just wanted to clarify that. (8) Emergency services. All proposed buildings, structures, equipment and/or material shall be readily accessible for fire, police, and other emergency service protection. I do not know if there is any change that would affect that. (9) Nuisances. The proposed use shall not be more objectionable to nearby property owners or occupants by reason of noise, fumes, vibration or lighting than would the operations of a permitted principal use. The performance standards found in this chapter shall represent the minimum requirements to be achieved by any proposed use. That governs things like noise. Mr. Astorino: That would go along with repairs of equipment, running of equipment to see that it is functioning properly. Mr. Fink: Yes. (10) Additional safeguards and conditions. The Planning Board shall impose additional conditions and safeguards upon the special permit as may be reasonably necessary to assure continual conformance to all applicable standards and requirements, including reasonable assurance that these conditions and safeguards can be responsibly monitored and enforced. (11) Environmental consideration. The proposed use shall not have a significant adverse environmental impact as defined by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). Such determination shall be made by the Town Planning Board or other designated lead agency. (12) In or adjacent to a residence district. In addition to the above criteria, in the case of any use located in or directly adjacent to a residence district: (a) The location and size of such use, the nature and intensity of operations involved in or conducted in connection therewith, the size of the site in relation to the use, its site layout and its relation to existing and future access streets shall be such that both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection therewith will not be hazardous or inconvenient to or incongruous with said residence district or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood; and (b) The location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and fences, and the nature and extent of landscaping on the site shall be such that the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair the value thereof. Those are the general standards for the Planning Board to give consideration to and identify whether or not the use exceeds the issuance of a special use permit and whether or not it can justify if it would be classified as a class 2 home occupation. Mr. Singer: Is it your interpretation that he could have 3 trucks and 2 trailers on the property? Mr. Fink: There is not a specific prohibition against 3 trucks and 2 trailers. It is based on looking at all of these general considerations in relation to the neighborhood. Is this a neighborhood where all of the houses are in close proximity? Could it cause a potential nuisance factor? Is this out in a rural situation where the nearest house is 1000 feet away? You are looking at the site in relation to its surroundings. Mr. Singer: This site has 150 foot width. The neighbors run on either side. Mr. Bollenbach: There is a provision in the code that the equipment and the materials are stored inside.

9 Page 9 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Fink: That is one of the requirements. Mr. Bollenbach: There is a maximum of 1 employee. It could still be a home occupation but it is limited in scope. Mr. Astorino: It has to adhere to the code. Mr. Bollenbach: Hours of operation, what do you propose? Tom Dougherty: We start at 8:30 a.m.. We close down around 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m.. Mr. Bollenbach: That complies with the hours of operation in the code. In no case should a home occupation be open at times earlier than 8:00 a.m. nor later than 8:00 p.m.. There are restrictions on that so that it is more conforming with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Astorino: Could you restrict the service end of it? No service allowed on site? Tom Dougherty: I also cut my own lawn with these mowers. That is a lot of the noise that they are hearing. Mr. Bollenbach: That would be just like anyone else Tom Dougherty: I use the same equipment. As the other day he referred to that, I was changing the tires. Yes, I did change and rotate the tires with an air gun. Mr. Bollenbach: Do it inside with the doors closed. Tom Dougherty: Ok. Mr. Astorino: Do any Board members have any comments? Zen, were you out there for the landscape? Zen Wojcik: Yes. Mr. Astorino: What is your feeling? Zen Wojcik: You can see some of the houses from the site. There is some landscaping on the site already. There are some mature trees on the site and a fence between the neighbors house. Some additional landscaping would enhance the site as being less obvious from the neighbors. That might help with some of the noise problems. Some 12-months a year type of shrubbery should help the situation. Mr. Fisher: I have a comment on the storage issue. Where is the storage? Are the trailers considered as equipment? Mr. Bollenbach: Yes. They are. They have to be in the garage. Mr. Fisher: The equipment has to be in the garage. If he has 2 trailers, does he have sufficient storage space to do this? These are my concerns. I understand the nature of the concerns of the residents. They do not want to have a huge amount of equipment and trailers out in their next-door neighbor s driveway Mr. Bollenbach: That is why the code says no outdoor storage of equipment or materials.

10 Page 10 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Fisher: Do you have sufficient indoor storage space? Tom Dougherty: For both trailers, no. Mr. Astorino: Do you have ample room to put another storage facility? Tom Dougherty: I would have to build something to put the trailers in. That would be more of an eyesore than the trailer itself. That does not make any sense. It would have to be a tremendous building. Mr. Bogdanski: I agree with you. I think that you are hearing and listening to the fact that the code itself at this point allows you one employee. It almost puts you in a position to have to let somebody go. It seems to me that you might want to consider going to the ZBA to see if you could get some variances for some of these conditions. From my perspective, and I do not know how the other Board members feel, if we go by the provisions of the code with the restrictions that we will put on there based on the code, you are down 33% in terms of your manpower in your ability to get your equipment around. Mr. Astorino: All of your equipment would have to be stored inside. I agree that if you put a big shed out there, it will be more of an eyesore than the trailer. Mr. Bollenbach: That is not part of the application. Mr. Astorino: No. We cannot approve that. Mr. Fisher: Do we have the ability to approve on what he is trying to do? Mr. Astorino: Not as is. As far as the regulations that Ted just read, we do not have the ability to approve it the way this application is before us. I agree with Bob. Mr. Bogdanski: I would have a problem as long as this operation stayed the same, given what we just had read to us right out of the code. Mr. Astorino: The ball is in your court. You could either go to the ZBA and seek a variance or revise your application. Mr. Bollenbach: Revise your application to conform. Your other choice would be to find some other place to conduct your operation. We will need to adjourn this public hearing without date. Mr. Singer makes a motion to adjourn the public hearing without date. Seconded by Mr. Bogdanski. Motion carried; 5-Ayes. Mr. Bollenbach: For the people in the audience, what that means is that this matter is being put on hold until the applicant decides to revise his application to conform or if he makes an application to the ZBA to obtain some type of variance. Right now, he does not conform to the Zoning Code. At such time he does revise his application, it will be brought before the Board to be set for a public hearing and you will then be noticed again. Tom Dougherty: Thank you.

11 Page 11 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Public Hearing of Waring Abbott and Sara Denning Application for preliminary approval of a proposed 3-lot subdivision; situated on tax parcel S 61 B 1 L 41.22, property located on the northern side of Old Tuxedo Road with frontage on Penaluna Road and Cox Drive, within a Designated Protection Area of Greenwood Lake, in the MT zone, of the Town of Warwick, County of Orange, State of New York. Representing the applicant: Dave Getz from Lehman & Getz, P.C., Jay Myrow, attorney, and Mr. Waring Abbott, the applicant. The following review comments submitted by Tectonic: (See attached) Comment #1: Board to discuss SEQR. Mr. Fink: This application is an Unlisted Action. The Planning Board had asked the applicant to provide us with a long EAF. The applicant has provided us with that form. We have in the file information from the DEC and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We have been looking at this as a cluster subdivision. We have the cluster subdivision, design process, 4-step process, site context map, and a yield plan for the lot count. There are wetlands on the site. They have been delineated. As far as the proposed plan from what I can tell, there is no disturbance to the federal wetland. There is also aquifer overlay that is associated with the area of the wetland on the property. This project is also located in the ridgeline overlay. Those are all of the SEQR issues. Comment #2: Applicant to discuss project. Dave Getz: It is a cluster subdivision. The property has approximately 31-acres. Two small lots are proposed at approximately 1-acre each. Mr. Abbott s residence would remain on the proposed Lot 1, the balance of the property. The Planning Board did a site visit during the summer. Nothing has changed in our proposal since that site visit. We have provided more detail notes. Comment #3: Applicant to include water testing deeded declaration provided by Town Engineer. Dave Getz: We are still waiting to get a copy of that. Zen Wojcik: We just ran it through Mr. Bollenbach. We got his ok. We will give you a copy of those now. Mr. Bollenbach: We will review it. We will provide you with sample deeded declarations. For water testing and vapor barriers. Jay Myrow: Is it going on the map and in the recorded declaration? Mr. Bollenbach: Yes.

12 Page 12 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Yield Plan (Revised 10/11/04) Comment #4: Cox Drive is a private road. a. Provide notes for recording private road use and maintenance agreement. Jay Myrow: John has that. We are finalizing it. b. Survey should describe the metes and bounds and ownership of the private road. Jay Myrow: I think that I have figured out the ownership issue. The tax map shows that the cull-de-sac was originally conveyed to the predecessors of Mr. Abbott and Ms. Denning. It was conveyed by reference to the subdivision lot # on here for Cox subdivision. That included the road. It was conveyed by Mr. Cox to Simenetta and Heap. When Simenetta and Heap conveyed to Waring and Sara, they did it by metes and bounds description but it did not include the cull-de-sac. There is a reference in there that it was intended to be that tax lot for some reason. Amisa GilPatrick drew the metes and bounds. It did not include it. As best as I can tell, Simenetta and Heap owned this road. On that map, there is obviously the rights of access. It was intended for access to all of these parcels and there was an obligation to maintain all of these roads. Mr. Bollenbach: Correct. Comment #5: Provide setback lines on Lot #2. (sheet Y-2 not provided). Dave Getz: Will provide. Cluster Plan (Revised 10/11/04) Comment #6: Provide the deeded description and the recording information on the plan for Ridgeline Overlay Notes and Aquifer Protection Notes. Dave Getz: Ok. Comment #7: Dimension setback lines on all lots. Dave Getz: Ok. Comment #8: Applicant to provide 911 addressing. Dave Getz: We received that back from John Batz last week. We will add that to the map. Mr. Bollenbach: In comment #6, the deeded declarations should also be for open space, water testing, vapor barrier, and road use and maintenance. Jay Myrow: The vapor barrier, is that included? Mr. Astorino: It is in there. Jay Myrow: Ok.

13 Page 13 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Bollenbach: Are there private road notes on the map already? Dave Getz: No. Mr. Bollenbach: I am looking at Item #4, Cox Drive is a private road. Provide private road notes. The recording information would be redundant with #6. General note #14, a declaration regarding open space requirements, ridgeline restrictions, well testing, and private road use and maintenance has been filed. Vapor barrier is missing. That will have to be revised. In #6, you could say revise note #14 accordingly. Mr. Astorino: Do any Board members have any comments? This is a public hearing. If there is anyone in the audience wishing to address the Waring Abbott and Sara Denning application, please rise and state your name for the record? Joan Hay: I live at XX Cox Drive. At what point would we be able to see the plot plan? Mr. Astorino: It is posted on the board. You could also see it at the Planning office. Joan Hay: Ok. When I originally bought the piece of property 25 years ago, at that time we were told that if there were ever another subdivision the road would not be our responsibility. Right now, the road is in terrible condition. That is my concern. Would the 2 new lots be using the same egress road which is Cox Drive for both of them Waring Abbott: Only one. Mr. Bollenbach: Zen, have you been out there to inspect the condition of that road? Is it up to the Town s specs at the present time? Zen Wojcik: The road is paved. It is an improved road. It is in rough condition. It could use a repaving. Joan Hay: It is not paved. Waring Abbott: It is rock. We could put some item on it. Mr. Bollenbach: We have been requiring that the road be paved. That is what we have been doing with other applications. It would need 2 coats of tar and chip. Jay Myrow: That will be in the declaration. Mr. Bollenbach: To maintain it? It has to be improved now. That is one of the conditions, to be improved prior to an issuance of a C of O. Jay Myrow: There is a map note on the original map. We will put a map note that the common access drive will be built to Town open development area road specifications that has been provided by the Town Engineer. Waring Abbott: That was suppose to apply to all of the owners of these lots including everyone else. Mr. Bollenbach: You are the batter up now.

14 Page 14 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Astorino: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to address the Waring Abbott and Sara Denning application. Let the record show no further public comments. Do any Board members have any comments? Mr. Bogdanski makes a motion for the Negative Declaration: (See attached) Mr. Bollenbach: I have one question on the Negative Declaration. On the third line from the bottom, it should be tested prior to the issuance of a building permit. Seconded by Mr. Singer. Motion carried; 5-Ayes. Mr. Bogdanski makes a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Fisher. Motion carried; 5-Ayes. Mr. Fisher makes a motion on the Waring Abbott and Sara Denning application, granting preliminary approval of a proposed 3-lot subdivision; situated on tax parcel S 61 B 1 L 41.22, property located on the northern side of Old Tuxedo Road with frontage on Penaluna Road and Cox Drive, within a Designated Protection Area of Greenwood Lake, in the MT zone, of the Town of Warwick, County of Orange, State of New York. Seconded by Mr. Bogdanski. Motion carried; 5-Ayes. Mr. Bollenbach: Does the applicant request that the Board wave the final public hearing? Waring Abbott: Yes. Mr. Bogdanski makes a motion to waive the final public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Buckbee. Motion carried; 5-Ayes. Mr. Bogdanski makes a motion on the Waring Abbott and Sara Denning application, granting final approval of a proposed 3-lot subdivision; situated on tax parcel S 61 B 1 L 41.22, property located on the northern side of Old Tuxedo Road with frontage on Penaluna Road and Cox Drive, within a Designated Protection Area of Greenwood Lake, in the MT zone, of the Town of Warwick, County of Orange, State of New York, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide setback lines on Lot #2. (sheet Y-2 not provided). 2. Provide the deeded declaration and the recording information on the plan with map notes for Ridgeline Overlay Notes, and Aquifer Protection Notes, open space, water testing, vapor barrier, and Road Use and Maintenance. Revise note #14 accordingly. 3. Dimension setback lines on all lots. 4. Applicant to provide 911 addressing. 5. Cox Road to be improved to Town Engineer s specifications prior to issuance of a C of O. (minimum 2 courses of tar and chip). 6. Provide certification of setting iron pins. 7. Pay Parkland Fees. 8. Pay all Outstanding Application, Professional Review, and Inspection Fees.

15 Page 15 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Mr. Singer: Mr. Bollenbach, do you feel comfortable that they have shown ownership of the road? Mr. Bollenbach: Yes. I am satisfied. Seconded by Mr. Buckbee. Motion carried; 5-Ayes. Dave Getz: Thank you.

16 Page 16 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Public Hearing of Oscar Blandi Application for site plan approval for the construction and use of an addition to an existing single-family home located within a Designated Protection Area within 100 of Greenwood Lake, situated on tax parcel S 74 B 5 L 31; property located on the eastern side of Jersey Avenue, in the SM zone, of the Town of Warwick, County of Orange, State of New York. Representing the applicant: Tom Hitchins, architect. Oscar Blandi, the applicant. Mr. Fisher recuses himself from the Oscar Blandi application. The following review comments submitted by Tectonic: (See attached) Comment #1: Board to discuss SEQR. (Project lies within Greenwood Lake Designated Protection Area). Mr. Fink: The Planning Board has declared Lead Agency. It is an Unlisted Action. The only real issues were the septic system. A dye test was performed. It passed. This is a minor expansion to an existing dwelling. SEQR has been addressed. Comment #2: Applicant to discuss project. Tom Hitchins: Mr. Blandi has an existing residence located on Greenwood Lake. He wishes to put on a family-room/sun-room and a porch on the lakeside of the house. He will be increasing the size of the second floor to make the existing bedrooms larger. That is the scope of the project. The reason why we are here is because the project lies within 100 feet of Greenwood Lake. Comment #3: Plan notes that existing sight lines are limited. Provide sight distance triangles at driveway and road intersection (ref NYSDOT Highway Design Manual 5.9.5). Applicant to discuss proposed mitigation to permanently improve sight distance. Tom Hitchins: At the last meeting, we discussed the situation. One suggestion that came up was that during the construction, we would have a flagman for the construction vehicles. That makes good sense. Unfortunately the major obstructions that are there are 2 existing garages. There is not much that we can do about them. One of the garages is not even on his property. Without moving existing structures, improving the sight triangles would be difficult. Zen Wojcik: Is there a place where you could setup a convex mirror? Tom Hitchins: You would want to set that up on the other side of the street. Zen Wojcik: It is possible to do that. Tom Hitchins: It is, if you have permission from the property owner on the other side of the street. Zen Wojcik: Could you ask? Tom Hitchins: We would be more than willing to do that.

17 Page 17 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Zen Wojcik: You should try that. Tom Hitchins: Ok. Mr. Bogdanski: What happens if that does not work? Zen Wojcik: Are there any other mitigation measures that they would like to propose? That is one that came to mind. It is up to the applicant to try to come up with some mitigation measures. If there is no room for mitigation, it is an existing condition, we would have to make a note on the plan that there is a project that has inadequate sight distance and that there are no measures available to improve the sight distance. That would be a warning to any future property owners. That would be a condition. Mr. Bogdanski: Do you agree with that? Zen Wojcik: You could also petition for the State to have a sign put up on the road that there are numerous driveways entering and exiting. That would be a mitigation measure. Mr. Bollenbach: Limited Sight Distance is one. Hidden Drive is another sign. That is something that you would have to pursue with the DOT. That would be in combination with the Town. It is an existing condition, but could it be made safer? Zen Wojcik: The applicant needs to follow up on all of this stuff. We will not do the legwork for them. Tom Hitchins: We will work with you on this. The problem with putting up a sign is that the property is narrow. We probably could put it in the other direction coming north. Zen Wojcik: It is a State road. They would tell you where the sign would be. Tom Hitchins: We could approach the State about it. Zen Wojcik: Now, we have 2 suggestions for mitigation. Tom Hitchins: We would be willing to explore both of them. Mr. Bollenbach: Perhaps, that last line of comment 3 could read, applicant to propose mitigation or improve sight distance to Town Engineer s specifications. Mr. Bogdanski: John, you are saying improve. It cannot be improved. Mr. Bollenbach: Then the applicant is to propose mitigation to the Town Engineers specifications. Zen Wojcik: We do not want to make it an impossible situation. Obviously, Mr. Blandi lives in the house already. The will not kick him out because he cannot see when he comes out of his driveway. We are trying to improve the situation as we do with other applications that are with the Board. We came up with 2 quick mitigation measures. They need to explore them to see which is feasible. Tom Hitchins: It is in my client s interest to have a safer exit. Mr. Bollenbach: Is that acceptable for the applicant?

18 Page 18 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Tom Hitchins: Do you object to have a mirror across the way or asking the State to put a sign further down the road? Oscar Blandi: No. Comment #4: Show the location of all existing septic systems within 200 feet of the site. Tom Hitchins: At the previous meeting, we had asked and received permission to pass on that since there was an existing septic and no bedrooms being added and a lot of septics within 200 feet, all existing. It is a tight area there. Mr. Fink: Is there community water? Tom Hitchins: Yes. Mr. Bollenbach: There is community water. That issue is irrelevant. Comment #4 can be stricken. Comment #5: Provide a legend. Note that all symbols and line types shall be shown. Tom Hitchins: That can be done. Comment #6: Clearly indicate, by change of line type or hatching, proposed modifications to existing house. Tom Hitchins: Yes. Comment #7: Provide erosion control measures on plans consistent with the current Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control and include details. Tom Hitchins: Yes. Comment #8: Applicant to discuss management of storm water runoff from impervious and grassed surfaces (per Greenwood Lake Commission comments). Tom Hitchins: As per our discussion at the last meeting with the engineer, we put on a note stating that the runoff is to run down to the stonewall. There are planting beds there. Mr. Bollenbach: Zen, has comment #8 been adequately addressed? Zen Wojcik: It is almost there. Need more detail as to what is going on. Mr. Bollenbach: It will be for the applicant to provide. Tom Hitchins: We will label what is on there. Comment #9: Reference dye test results witness ed by the Town s Engineer on plans. Mr. Astorino: That was discussed. Did they pass? Zen Wojcik: Yes. They need to put that on the plans.

19 Page 19 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Tom Hitchins: We will do that. Comment #10: Label Location Map. Correct scale of location map. Show north arrow. Tom Hitchins: Ok. Comment #11: Pay outstanding review fees. Tom Hitchins: Yes. Mr. Bollenbach: Is there 911 addressing on the map? Zen Wojcik: There is an address on the map. Mr. Bollenbach: Is it signed off? Is it the correct one? Tom Hitchins: Yes. It is 236 Jersey Avenue. Mr. Bollenbach: Ok. Mr. Astorino: Do any Board members have any comments? This is a public hearing. If there is anyone in the audience wishing to address the Oscar Blandi application, please rise and state your name for the record. Let the record show no public comments. Mr. Buckbee makes a motion for the Negative Declaration: (See attached) Seconded by Mr. Singer. Motion carried; 4-Ayes. Mr. Bogdanski makes a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Singer. Motion carried; 4-Ayes. Mr. Bogdanski makes a motion on the Oscar Blandi application, granting site plan approval for the construction and use of an addition to an existing single-family home located within a Designated Protection Area within 100 of Greenwood Lake, situated on tax parcel S 74 B 5 L 31; property located on the eastern side of Jersey Avenue, in the SM zone, of the Town of Warwick, County of Orange, State of New York, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plan notes that existing sight lines are limited. Provide sight distance triangles at driveway and road intersection (ref. NYSDOT Highway Design Manual 5.9.5). Applicant to provide mitigation to Town Engineer s specifications. 2. Provide a legend. Note that all symbols and line types shall be shown. 3. Clearly indicate, by change of line type or hatching, proposed modifications to existing house. 4. Provide erosion control measures on plans consistent with the current Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control and include details. 5. Applicant to provide management of storm water runoff from impervious and grassed surfaces (per Greenwood Lake Commission comments) to Town Engineer s specifications. 6. Reference dye test results witnessed by the Town s Engineer on plans.

20 Page 20 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, Label Location Map. Correct scale of location map. Show north arrow. 8. Pay Outstanding Review Fees. Seconded by Mr. Singer. Motion carried; 4-Ayes. Tom Hitchins: Thank you.

21 Page 21 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Review of Submitted Maps: Scott Edwards Lot Line Change Scott Edwards Lot Line Change Application for sketch plat review of a proposed lot line change, situated on tax parcel S 26 B 1 L 67 and S 26 B 1 L 37.11; parcel located on the southern side of Amity Road and 140-feet north of Feagles Road, in the RU zone, of the Town of Warwick. Representing the applicant: Karen Emmerich from Lehman & Getz. Mr. Astorino: Let the record show that Mr. Fisher returns to the Planning Board. The following review comments submitted by Tectonic: (See attached) Comment #1: Board to discuss SEQR. Mr. Fink: Under SEQR, the applicant has provided us with a short EAF. This application is for a lot line alteration. It is an Unlisted Action. The Planning Board can declare Lead Agency. Mr. Fisher makes a motion for Lead Agency: (See attached) Seconded by Mr. Singer. Motion carried; 5-Ayes. Comment #2: Applicant to discuss project. Karen Emmerich: We have 2 lots. One lot is acres and the other lot is acres. They are both owned by Edwards Nursery. We were here earlier this year to take the 4-acre parcel off on the lot S 26 B 1 L 67. We took that 4-acre parcel off for a residence. Two brothers, Scott and Edward, own the nursery. What they are doing is each one will own a separate lot. It will be roughly the same size. They are doing a lot line change because one of the brothers wants the barn on his property. It makes sense because the lot line is screwy as it is now. What we are doing is evening it up. Mr. Bollenbach: The deed for each of these lots, is it Edwards Nursery, Inc., or partnership? Karen Emmerich: It is Inc. You have a copy of both deeds. They are both officers of the corporation. Mr. Fink: Karen, do they have any other further plans for this? Karen Emmerich: I know that Ted is continuing his nursery operation on SBL # On the other parcel, I do not know what his intentions are. Mr. Bollenbach: Is there any present plan for further development? Karen Emmerich: Not that I am aware of. Mr. Fink: The reason why I ask is that it is the 3 rd application within the last year. The issue is segmentation.

22 Page 22 of 37 Town of Warwick Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Karen Emmerich: The first one that we had to do was because of the cemetery. The second one was for the subdivision of the lot for Ted s residence. The nursery operation runs out of Midland Park, New Jersey. They grow the trees up here. They have a landscaping nursery business down there. The other brother, Scott still lives down there. Comment #3: A submittal to the Orange County Planning Dept. is required. Karen Emmerich: That is done. Connie Sardo: That has been done. We received a response from them. I handed out copies of the letter tonight to the Board. Karen Emmerich: It states in the letter dated 10/29/04, that they do not expect the proposed use to have any major impacts upon County or State facilities or create any inter municipal concerns. The Department recommends approval. Comment #4: Please re-title plan Scott Edwards Nursery to avoid confusion with another recently approved application. Karen Emmerich: I do not want to call it Scott Edwards Nursery because it is not just Scott Edwards Nursery. Zen Wojcik: Why don t we call it Edwards Nursery II? Mr. Bollenbach: We will call it Edwards Nursery II. Karen Emmerich: Ok. Comment #5: Revise Location Map to a scale of 1 inch = 2000 feet to better locate property within Town. Karen Emmerich: Is that vicinity map not good enough? Zen Wojcik: It is within the context of the neighborhood. Let see if there is a connection with the rest of the Town. That is what the location map should show. Karen Emmerich: Will this be a new requirement? Zen Wojcik: That is what is in the checklist. It says 2000 feet. Karen Emmerich: Ok. Comment #6: Separately define and identify areas of NYSDEC and ACOE Jurisdictional wetlands. Karen Emmerich: I can show that based on the general information that we have from the Orange County Water Authority mapping. Zen Wojcik: On the previous application for that one lot there were some differences between the 2 wetlands. If you go back to what you had previously that would be a step in the right direction. Karen Emmerich: I think that it showed on the lot of Ted Edwards.