C.B. Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 5, 2006 7:00 PM Page 1
 |
Minutes of the September 5, 2006 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: Richard Schechter, Chairman
Ann Bergantz
James Loesch
Frank Newton
David Ward
EXCUSED: Thomas Jaeger
George Schichtel
OTHERS PRESENT:
Nan Ackerman, Councilwoman
Remy C. Orffeo, Planning Coordinator
Milton Bradshaw, Assessor
Dave Benes, Senior Tax Map Technician
Keith Fisher, Fisher Bus
Andy Gow, Nussbaumer & Clarke
Frank Brzezinski, L.A.
Mary Anne Carr, M.A. Carr
Jim Ball, Jim Ball Pontiac
Stephen Castilone
Roger Tanguay
David Archabald
__________________________________________________________________________________
Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. by stating that in accordance to the provisions of the ethics law of the Town of Orchard Park it is incumbent upon any Conservation Board member with a financial or business relationship with any petitioner coming before this Board to disclose this relationship and, if warranted, to recuse him or herself from any matter involving the petitioner. Any petitioner coming before this Board who is a relative of, or 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 ethics provisions of the Town of Orchard Park.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A MOTION was made by Mr. Loesch, seconded by Mr. Newton, to ACCEPT the minutes of the August 1, 2006 meeting.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
C.B. Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 5, 2006 7:00 PM Page 2
NEW BUSINESS
1. C.B. File #46-06, M.A. Carr, Vacant land, east side of North Buffalo Street, Zoned B-3. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a 3,360 sq. ft. Bridal Dress Shop. Town Board referred to Conservation Board on 8/16/06.
Date of Plan: 8/01/06
Landscape Architect: Frank Brzezinski
Plan Number: L-3
Date Plan Received: 8/28/06
Mr. Brzezinski presented and explained the proposed landscaping plan to the Board. He noted that the site is less than 1 acre with scrubby lawn area. The proposed bridal salon is designed with windows that will be low (almost to the floor); therefore, shrubs cannot be used. He told the Board that the plan proposes the use of Pachysandra ground cover, Skyline Honey Locust, Amsalzam Crab Apple, Ivory Silk Tree Lilac and Colorado Spruce. The estimated cost of the landscaping is $5,357.00.
The members discussed the drainage at the site and established that the applicant has filed an appeal requesting a variance for front yard parking. Mrs. Carr is scheduled to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 19, 2006.
Mrs. Bergantz noted that she would like additional plantings to be included to screen the proposed front yard parking area, on both sides of the driveway if this request is approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman asked the applicant to modify the plan to reflect the additional plantings.
Mrs. Bergantz made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Loesch to TABLE the review of this case.
THE MOTION TO TABLE IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. C.B. File #34-06, Jim Ball, 3443 Southwestern Blvd. Zoned B2. Requesting permission to eliminate buffer area on Hart Place & Southwestern Blvd. Board to review of property landscaping related to safety driving issues. Town Board referred to Conservation Board on 5/17/06.
Chairman Schechter recused himself from this case.
Mr. Ball presented a plan to the members, noting that he is appearing for concept review only. He had owned several residential homes at this location; the homes were removed and the site has changed. He told the Board that the remaining area collects garbage; security issues exist and motorists have visibility problems. He would like to modify a portion of the buffer zone, crating a cleaner and safer area. Mr. Ball noted that he will return to the Board with a plan based on the Board’s comments.
C.B. Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 5, 2006 7:00 PM Page 3
Mrs. Bergantz noted that the request to modify the buffer area must also be made to the Town Board.
Mr. Loesch stated that he performed an on-site inspection of the area and he feels that Mr. Ball’s request is reasonable, as the area needs improvement. He would like Mr. Ball to return with a stamped landscape plan based on the Board’s comments. He discussed having additional street trees planted at 15 to 20 foot intervals and additional plant material, noting that the under story appears ragged. He further noted that an effort should be made to preserve the mature trees. He suggests that clumping material, such as evergreens be planted to help with the visual and safety concerns discussed by Mr. Ball.
Mrs. Bergantz discussed the dumpsters located on the property, noting that they must be screened and completely enclosed. She would like this addressed in the landscaping plan.
Councilwoman Ackerman told Mr. Ball that he must not remove landscaping at the site without the Town Board’s permission. Mr. Ball told the Board that he will have his landscape architect tag what will live and what will not. Planning Coordinator Orffeo told Mr. Ball to contact Town Arborist, Lynn Reynolds and make arrangements with him to visit the site after this is done.
3. C.B. File #36-06, Fisher Bus, Vacant Land South Benzing Road, Zoned I-1. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a new headquarters facility totaling approximately 17,000 sq. ft. (office and repair shop) with parking for vehicles (buses and cars) on an 11+/- acre site. Town Board referred to Conservation Board on 5/17/06. Board to review revised plan.
Date of Plan: N/A
Landscape Architect: N/A
Plan Number: N/A
Date Plan Received: For concept review - 8/25/06
Mr. Gow presented and explained a revised landscaping plan to the Board. He told the Board that the interior green space figure has been recalculated and is 8.3%. To increase this number the applicant would have to increase the size of the parking lot as there are a fixed number of vehicles that have to fit on the lot. Mr. Gow noted that Mr. Fisher purchased additional property and has increased the site based on comments made by the members at a prior meeting. Since that time, he has purchased the entire parcel.
Mrs. Bergantz discussed the fact that Mr. Fisher has not met the 10% interior green space requirement. She stated that she feels this is important, as this is a large area. She also noted that the planting material in the island area does not meet the requirement. Mrs. Bergantz stated that she does not feel this is a hardship situation and that these are two separate issues.
C.B. Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 5, 2006 7:00 PM Page 4
Mr. Gow and Mr. Fisher discussed their feelings regarding the interior green space requirement. Mr. Gow noted that he was under the impression that the Board would allow the interior green space percentage proposed project to be under the 10% requirement. The Chairman told the applicants that the plan submitted at the August 1, 2006 meeting did not have the green space calculation noted and that the Board was “working in the dark.”
Mr. Loesch stated that he concurs with Mrs. Bergantz’ statement that these are two separate issues. He would like considerable buffer material planted for the neighbors. He told Mr. Fisher that with regards to the island areas, the proposed material is inadequate. He suggests using ornamentals that will hang over. Mr. Loesch established that the wetland delineation to be performed by the Army Corps of Engineers has not yet been received. He noted that the parking plan may need to be revised. However, Mr. Gow does not believe their determination will create a revision in the proposed parking plan. He also told the Board that the employee parking area has 10% interior green space.
The Board suggested and discussed various ways to increase the interior green space area of the parking lot. They also told Mr. Fisher that each island area should contain four trees.
The Chairman stated that the applicant needs to try his best to meet the 10% minimum requirement. He noted that this is a lot of black top with out enough landscaping. He would like the applicant to revise the plan based on the suggestions of the Board.
4. C.B. File #27-06, Quaker Crossing, LLC, South side of Milestrip Road across from Quaker Crossing Retail Center, Zoned B-1, proposed Sam’s Club. Town Board referred to Conservation Board on 4/19/06. Board to review requested revisions.
Date of Plan: 8/22/06
Landscape Architect: Douglas McCord
Plan Number: C5
Date Plan Received: 8/1/06
The Chairman noted that at the August meeting the plan was approved contingent upon receiving a revised plan. The Board has reviewed the revised plan and has found it acceptable.
1. Conservation Easement requests:
· Mr. & Mrs. Kabza, 5605 Amor Duells Road. Requesting a 30-year Conservation Easement on 10.77 acres.
Mrs. Bergantz will tour the property and report back to the Conservation Board.
C.B. Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 5, 2006 7:00 PM Page 5
· Mr. David Archabald & Ms. Archabald, 5997 Benning Road. Requesting a perpetual Conservation Easement of 42.50 acres. The entire parcel is 48.80 acres.
Mrs. Bergantz will tour the property and report back to the Conservation Board.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Response to Assessor Milton Bradshaw’s handout dated 8/1/06 (below) to the Board Members;
Assessor Bradshaw wrote; I have some concerns about the conservation easement:
1.. Under the Town Law there is not defined minimum acreage. Everyone just assumed it was 5 acres.
2. When a property owner splits off property with conservation
easement. If the minimum acreage is 5 acres and 1 acre is sold
off neither property would have qualified before the split. But
property with a 5 acre conservation easement that splits
off 1 acres results in 2 qualified parcels.
3. When property with a conservation easement is split off, how
does your office update your records?
4. Is the minimum acreage for one (1) parcel or can 2 or more parcels
make up the 5 acres?
5. Is the property located within the conservation easement described
with a metes and bound description or identified on a survey?
6. Who is responsible for policing the conservation easement should
a resident decide to build a shed or something else?
7. Who figures out the penalty? We would need someone to explain
this how the calculation is done.
8. If someone built a structure on the property within the
conservation easement, do they have a choice to demo the structure
before paying a penalty?
The Board members addressed the questions Assessor Bradshaw had with regards to Conservation Easements. The Chairman noted the penalty provision was modified and that this is found in Section 52a of the Town Code. The members told Assessor Bradshaw that 5 acres is generally the minimum amount of area that is considered for a conservation easement, unless the property has a nearby conservation easement area, good ascetics or extenuating circumstances. They concluded that each request is reviewed on a case, by case basis. Councilwoman Ackerman noted that the purpose of conservation easements is to create visual ambiance.
C.B. Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 5, 2006 7:00 PM Page 6
The Board also told Assessor Bradshaw that if a property in a Conservation Easement is split-off and sold for developmental purposes, Section 52a of the penalty code will apply and the area will revert to having no Conservation Easement. They further explained that Conservation Easements may contain different terms and conditions, such as to allow the Grantor to harvest wood.
The Board discussed “floating lots”. The Chairman noted that each agreement must have a metes and bounds and a survey, as mandated by Town Law, provided by the applicant. He asked the Planning Coordinator to revise the Conservation Easement application to reflect this requirement.
Mrs. Bergantz would like a marker or monument places on properties to designate Conservation Easement areas.
The Board discussed enforcement and the following is suggested; providing a list of the Conservation Easements to the Building Inspector; have the land conservancy group contacted by Board Member Jim Loesch; hiring of college students to review; have an employee in the Assessor’s Office perform the task.
The Board discussed the penalty and noted that it is meant to discourage violations of the agreement.
The Board noted that any new structure placed on a Conservation Easement area is a violation.
The Planning Coordinator will review the Conservation Easement procedures and report back to the Board.
With no other business to be presented to the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
DATED: October 31, 2006 Respectfully submitted,
REVIEWED: November 3, 2006 Rosemary M. Seivert
Conservation Board Secretary
Richard Schechter
Conservation Board Chairman