C.B. Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 May 31, 2005 7:00 PM Page 1
Minutes of the May 31, 2005 meeting of the CONSERVATION BOARD of the TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, Municipal Center, Second Floor Conference Room, 4295 South Buffalo Street, Orchard Park, New York at 7:00 PM. Present were the following:
MEMBERS PRESENT: James Loesch, Chairman
Ann Bergantz
Frank Newton
George Schichtel
David Ward
Richard Schechter
EXCUSED: Thomas Jaeger
OTHERS PRESENT: Sarah desJardins, Planning Coordinator
Marc Mussachio, Mussachio Architects
Gerald Hood, Landscape Architect
Jeb Bray, petitioner
Andy Gow, Nussbaumer & Clarke
John Krzan, petitioner
OTHER ATTENDEES: Suzie Coppola, Southtowns Citizen
Raymond Waite
Lori Cloud
Theresa Schosek
Ruth Zak
Elizabeth Quinlan
Chairman James Loesch called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. by stating that any person before this Board who is a relative of, or who has a financial or business relationship with, any officer or employee of the Town of Orchard park must disclose the nature and extent of such relationship in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Law of the Town of Orchard Park.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A MOTION was made by Mr. Schichtel, seconded by Mr. Newton, to accept the minutes of the May 3, 2005 meeting.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. C.B. File #36-04, proposed Jim Ball Auto Center, Vacant land, northwest corner of Mid-County Drive and Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2 Special Exception Use. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a new auto center facility. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 3/2/05. Tabled by the Conservation Board on 5/3/05.
Landscape Architect: Gerald Hood, Landscape Architect
Plan Number: A-1.2 (Scheme #1)
Date of Plan: 3/30/05
Date Plan Received: 5/31/05
The Chairman reviewed the history of this proposal and noted that it was tabled at the May 3, 2005 meeting because the Engineering Department noticed that the proposed site
C.B. Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 May 31, 2005 7:00 PM Page 2
plan showed the required fence three feet inside the conservation easement area instead of on Jim Ball’s side of the property line and that the petitioner was asked to return with a corrected plan. He noted that the petitioner had proposed a second option, which includes plantings inside the conservation easement area, as opposed to the fence on the property line.
Mr. Mussachio stated that this property was previously zoned commercial and industrial, and as such the petitioner could have built a building such as a Seven Eleven ten feet away from the property line with no buffer for the neighbors. However, as part of the rezoning, Mr. Ball agreed to provide a 50-foot buffer along Southwestern Boulevard, as well as along the side lot lines. The Chairman replied that the rezoning probably would not have been approved without the buffers provided and that the land is now in fact zoned B-2 Special Exception Use and a buffer is required.
Mr. Mussachio explained that Scheme 1 depicts a six-foot high stockade fence running along the edge of the conservation easement area and located on Jim Ball’s property, just off the property line. There was discussion regarding how high the fence might be, as the residents prefer an eight-foot high fence. The Chairman stated that the Conservation Board’s recommendation might be that the Planning Board and Town Board consider a fence higher than six feet. However, the Town Code requires a fence to be no higher than six feet and therefore a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
It was determined that the conservation easement area will extend along the east lot lines of the properties on Auckland Avenue and continue along the north lot line of the last property on the east side of Auckland Avenue. It was also determined that the land to be preserved has not yet been placed in a conservation easement and that there will be no access whatsoever through any portion of the conservation easement.
Mr. Mussachio stated that the petitioner feels Scheme 2 is more appropriate for what the Board is attempting to achieve. He explained that Scheme 2 provides an evergreen and dogwood planting and/or a series of lower plantings within the easterly most ten feet of the conservation easement area. The trees would be six to seven feet tall spaced 10 to 15 feet apart. He showed the Board and the neighbors a graphic of what the neighbors would see with a fence in place versus the proposed plantings. Mr. Ward questioned how well the proposed plantings would be maintained along side a wooded area and whether evergreens could survive there, given possible drainage problems and snow removal activities nearby. Mrs. Bergantz stated that a fence would protect the trees and plants on the other side from the snow removal activities.
Mrs. Bergantz stated that it is her understanding that no disturbance of the conservation easement area in any way is allowed. If that is the case, then Scheme 2 is not feasible as long as it is proposed in the conservation easement area, and a fence along the property line is what the Board asked for at the May meeting. Installing the fence would provide the neighbors with the barrier they desire while using the least amount of Jim Ball’s property. Mr. Mussachio replied that the petitioner is proposing what he feels is a better long-term solution than a fence.
The Chairman reminded the petitioner that originally the Board requested that the islands closest to the conservation easement area be enlarged and that additional substantial plantings be installed there in order to better buffer the Auckland Avenue neighbors. At that time the petitioner stated that Jim Ball could not provide that because of the configuration of the parking area. The Chairman also reminded the petitioner that the Planning Board Chairman had previously told the petitioner that he was attempting to
C.B. Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 May 31, 2005 7:00 PM Page 3
put too much on too little. He further reminded the petitioner that when the petitioner could not entertain putting substantial plantings in the islands closest to the conservation easement area, the neighbors opted for the installation of a fence, in lieu of placing plantings on their properties to buffer the site. The Board is in agreement with the fence being installed.
Mr. Ward stated that Scheme 2 would reduce the conservation easement to 40’ and because the neighbors have made their preference known, the Board should require the fence.
Mr. Schichtel stated that he feels snow plowing would be a problem if Scheme 2 was approved and that damage would be done to existing vegetation in the conservation easement area, as well as to new plantings. He further noted that he feels there are types of vegetation that the petitioner could plant in the islands that would serve as a heavier buffer for the neighbors. He voiced concern regarding the perpetual maintenance of the fence and wants the neighbors to be guaranteed that the fence will always be maintained.
Mr. Schechter recognized that Scheme 2 was presented to the Board as an alternative to that which the Board requested at its last meeting and he feels that Scheme 1 is a better plan for the neighbors and the Town.
Mr. Newton stated that he is favor of the fence and voiced displeasure that the neighbors were not given time to review Scheme 2 before the meeting.
A MOTION was made by Mr.Newton, seconded by Mr. Ward, to APPROVE the landscape plan labeled Scheme 1, which includes the installation of a fence on Jim Ball’s side of the 50-foot conservation easement area. Provisions shall be made for the 6’ high solid fence to be maintained by the petitioner on a permanent basis. A note shall be sent to the Planning Board and Town Board asking them to consider recommending a variance for an 8’ high fence instead of 6’. All lighting is to be directed downward and toward the site and any dumpsters are to be screened. A Landscape Completion Bond in the amount of $76,377.00 or a certified check in the amount of $38,188.50 is to be presented to the Town Clerk prior to receipt of a building permit. Approval is contingent upon acceptance by the Town Engineering Department of the drainage plan.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. C.B. File #14-05, proposed Freeman Road subdivision, Vacant land, east side of Freeman Road, north of Jewett-Holmwood Road, Zoned R-1. Requesting Pre-Application Findings Review of a 121-lot subdivision.
Project Engineer: Nussbaumer & Clarke
Plan Number: Concept Plan
Date of Plan: 4/28/05
Date Plan Received: 5/2/05
The Chairman noted that this review would be conceptual only.
Mr. Gow explained that this proposal is for a 121-lot subdivision in an R-1 zone. He stated that, based on mathematical calculations, the petitioner could put in approximately 151 lots but that, due to the way the property is configured and the existence of wetlands on the property, the petitioner feels the 121-lot plan is the best. There are three roads proposed coming in off of Freeman Road and there is a proposed
C.B. Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 May 31, 2005 7:00 PM Page 4
road to tie into the proposed Part II of the Birdsong Subdivision to the east. He further stated that there are 16.6 acres of federal wetlands on the site. He was asked if the Army Corps of Engineers has verified the wetland delineation and he responded that he did not know.
Mr. Gow stated that the land surrounding the wetlands amounts to approximately ten acres and that the petitioner proposes to dedicate this land to the Town. Mr. Newton replied that he would rather see the land contiguous to the Town-owned land south of the wetland area be dedicated to the Town. He explained that the Town will not accept wetlands and that the Town will want dry land that can be used for recreation. In addition, the land south of the wetland area would tie in nicely with the Town-owned land associated with the Birdsong subdivision. Mr. Gow reiterated that the land being offered to the Town is not wetlands, but rather the surrounding land.
Mr. Ward explained that this land might not be very useful for recreational purposes as it consists of several small isolated pieces. Mr. Schechter stated that he would like the donated land to be contiguous to the existing recreation area to the south. Mr. Gow asked if the Board would be amenable to a trail system that would tie the land surrounding the wetlands into the existing Town-owned recreation area.
Mrs. Bergantz stated that she thinks the lots proposed on Freeman Road are the least attractive and she would prefer that the petitioner keep the land along Freeman Road in a more natural state. In this way, a person driving on Freeman Road would not notice the development as much. She would like the land along Freeman Road included in the recreation land. She also asked about the wetland area within the three lots proposed on Freeman Road. Mr. Gow responded that that wetland area would be filled and the mitigation done on site, probably in the vicinity of the existing large wetland area. He further stated that he thinks the wetland mitigation ratio would be 1:1. The Chairman noted that the Board wants minimal impact on existing wetlands.
Mr. Ward noted that if the petitioner donated the land to the south of the wetland area to the Town, he would not have to install the roadway and cross the wetland, making for a more simple construction project.
Mr. Schichtel stated that getting additional recreational space contiguous to Birdsong would be tremendous.
Mr. Schechter stated that he is less concerned about the proposed lots on Freeman Road as he is having the donated land contiguous to the existing Town-owned recreation land.
The Chairman told the petitioner that the Board would like him to return to a subsequent meeting with a plan incorporating the concerns raised by the Board. The Board would like the plan to show the land to be donated directly adjacent to the Town-owned property to the south. In addition, impact on existing wetlands should be minimized. He further noted that any plan would be subject to the Army Corps of Engineers’ verification of the wetland delineation. He confirmed that the Board’s concern is that the petitioner work to absolutely minimize the visual impact on Freeman Road and reiterated that removing the three proposed lots on Freeman Road would probably be in everyone’s best interest.
Mr. Bray stated that the three proposed Freeman Road lots would be compatible with the homes currently being built on the west side of the road by Thomas Johnson. The Chairman responded that the Board would rather not have any homes built on the east side of Freeman Road.
C.B. Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 May 31, 2005 7:00 PM Page 5
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Dr. John Krzan, 19 Rock Dove Lane, Birdsong to discuss planting seven (7) Colorado Blue Spruce trees in the Town-owned recreation land adjacent to his property.
Dr. John Krzan explained to the Board that his property borders the Town-owned path that leads to the nature preserve. He would like to install a raised bed with seven (7) Colorado Blue Spruce trees in a staggered row, 15 to 16 feet apart. He currently maintains the Town land between his property and the path and would continue to do so. Mr. Ward asked Dr. Krzan what his purpose is in planting the trees. Dr. Krzan replied that he has heard of the proposed Freeman Road subdivision and he would like to continue to have a buffer between his home and whatever is developed. He stated that his intention is to install the trees following the contour of the existing path.
Mr. Schechter stated that he is not sure what the Town’s policy is regarding the procedure by which a private landowner would plant something on Town property. The Chairman added that the Board has questions regarding liability issues and he wondered if a hold harmless agreement would be necessary in this instance. He told the petitioner that if the Board decides to recommend that the Town Board approve this request, it would add the stipulation that the necessary hold harmless agreement and insurance certificates from whomever does the work be in place. In addition, the Chairman noted that there also should be a long-term agreement with the landowner.
Mr. Schechter wondered whether the Town and Dr. Krzan would consider the possibility of the Town installing the trees at Dr. Krzan’s expense. Dr. Krzan replied that he had not considered that possibility and thinks he would rather do the job himself, rather than paying a contractor to do it for the Town. He added that it would be more expensive that way for him. Mr. Schechter agreed, noting that liability would be an issue and it might set a precedent.
Mrs. Bergantz stated that her preference would be to table this request so that the Board can walk the property and fully understand the issues involved. She further questioned whether the Engineering, Highway and Recreation departments should be given an opportunity to comment as to any future plans for the pathway or access to it. Dr. Krzan noted that the proposed trees would be 20 feet away from the pathway and that there would be ample room for construction vehicles, etc. if they were needed.
The Chairman stated that there are several ways to look at this proposal and asked the petitioner for some time to consider it. He further stated that the Board would be tabling the request that evening.
Mr. Schichtel commented that he appreciates the fact that Dr. Krzan came to the Conservation Board, rather than planting the trees and asking for permission later. He further stated that he thinks a different variety of tree, such as Norway Spruce, might be more compatible with that site. He added that Norway Spruce are deer resistant. He feels this is a test case for the Board and it gives the Board interesting ideas to think about for the future.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Schechter, to TABLE the request for further discussion with the Town Board and Town Attorney.
C.B. Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 May 31, 2005 7:00 PM Page 6
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. Conservation Easement request – Paul & Maureen Montgomery, 6031 Bunting Road. Requesting a perpetual easement on 8+/- acres.
Mrs. Bergantz will review the property and report back to the Conservation Board at the July meeting.
With no other business to be presented to the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah K. desJardins
Planning Coordinator
James E. Loesch
Chairman