Minutes of the August 13, 2003 meeting of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, S4295 South Buffalo Street, Erie County
MEMBERS PRESENT: Harold Fabinsky, Chairman
John Bernard
Lorraine Biryla
Paul Bodden
William McNamara
Phillip Murray
EXCUSED: Michael McGuire
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT: Toni Cudney, Supervisor
David Holland, Assistant Building Inspector
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Sarah desJardins, Planning Coordinator
David G. Yates, Principal Engineer Assistant
The Chairman called the meeting to order by stating that if anyone appearing before the Board has a family, financial or business relationship with any member of the Board, it is incumbent upon that person to make it known under State law and the Town Code of Ethics.
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the reading of the minutes of the June 18th, the July 9th and the July 16th Planning Board meetings were unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mrs. Biryla made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden to accept the minutes of the June 18, 2003 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Bernard noted a correction to be made to the July 9th minutes as follows:
Page 7, paragraph six is to read; “Mr. Bernard noted that the two cul-de-sacs proposed in Part 3A that were located off of different streets when the Planning
Board conceptually approved the subdivision are now located offset on the same street”.
Mr. Murray noted several corrections to be made to the July 9th minutes as follows:
Beginning on Page 3, bottom paragraph, last sentence, insert the word “that” on page 4 so sentence reads; “Mr. Pidanick told the Board that he does have a drawing that can be incorporated with the final submission that shows the clearing limits”.
Mr. Murray requests that when an individual is directly quoted that their words be set in quotation marks to avoid misunderstandings. The following sentences are to be set in quotation marks, as they were direct quotes:
Page 4, fourth paragraph, Mr. Pidanick informed the Board that “the application for the Public Improvement Permit will not include street lighting and if the Public Improvement Permit is not approved without street lights, the developer will handle that issue at that time with the Town Board”.
Page 6, bottom paragraph; Mr. Dominic Piestrak stated that “the original commitment he made to the Town regarding conservation areas was that when the subdivision is completed there will be the same amount of conservation land throughout the subdivision as what was approved when the original conservation area concept was approved”.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Biryla, to accept the July 9, 2003 minutes as corrected.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Bernard noted several corrections to the July 16th minutes as follows:
Page 2, third paragraph from bottom should read; “Mr. Riedman explained that the vegetation that is inside the silt fence will be completely removed and that which is outside the silt fence will remain”.
Page 3, top sentence; “with two (2) 13” wide gutters”, should read “with two (2) 30 “ wide gutters.
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to accept the July 16th minutes as corrected.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. 7:30 P.M. Public Hearing, P.B. File #20-00, Riedman Development, 50+/- acres of vacant land, east side of Orchard Park Road, south of Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned R-3 Special Exception Use. Requesting site plan approval of a 288-unit luxury garden apartment community. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 7/2/03.
APPEARANCE: Mr. David Riedman, President, Riedman Development
Mr. Robert Cantwell, BME Architects
The Chairman called the Public Hearing to order. The Affidavit of Publication and Posting, published July 26, 2003 was presented and filed with the Board by the Planning Board Secretary.
IN FAVOR:
Mr. David Riedman, President
Riedman Development
45 East Avenue
Rochester, New York 14604
Mr. Riedman stated that he is in favor of developing this project.
AGAINST:
Mrs. Cheryl Williams
17 Tanglewood East
Orchard Park, New York 14127
Mrs. Williams would like to know if there is a need in Orchard Park for more apartments. She feels that, presently, there are many vacancies. She would like to see townhouses developed rather than apartments.
Mrs. Mary O’Leary
137 Southwick Drive
Orchard Park, New York 14127
Mrs. O’Leary noted that she had similar concerns, noting that vacancies exist at the nearby Provincetown apartments. She also expressed her feelings regarding the high density that will be created in this section of town. She stated that traffic will be increased by an additional 300 to 500 vehicles, creating safety concerns for the area. Mrs. O’Leary feels the “five corners” area would become similar to Niagara Falls Boulevard. Mrs. O’Leary also asked if a connecting road would be implemented to the Royal Hill subdivision as indicated on the initial plans. She further expressed a desire to see the final plans for the project and to be able to know what it would look like.
Mrs. Biryla made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden to CLOSE the PUBLIC HEARING.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Chairman stated that he would like Mr. Riedman to respond to the questions raised by the citizens who spoke. He asked Mr. Riedman if there would be a connecting road to the Royal Hill Estates. Mr. Riedman explained that a request by the Planning Board had been made to show a future location for a connection to Countryside Lane and the proposed project. Riedman development complied with this request by having the initial plans show this connector road. However, no connector road will be developed to Royal Hill Estates. Mr. Riedman explained that primary access will be gained through the existing signalized access road along Orchard Park Road, presently being used by the Tops Plaza. A curb cut is shown on this access road and this will be used for the main entrance into the complex. Also shown on the plan is an emergency access road with a crash gate located at the back of the Tops Plaza. There are no other curb cuts shown on the plan.
Mr. Riedman addressed the concerns regarding the existing apartment vacancies in Orchard Park by stating that vacancies will always exist at a rate of approximately three to four percent. Mr. Riedman explained that the market
studies performed have indicated that there is a high demand for this type of project. He further explained that when the rezoning of the property was
granted, it was stipulated that the 288-unit project would be built in phases. Phase I will have 144 units built and Phase II cannot be started until 30 months following this approval. Mr. Riedman noted that this is a long-range project and it will continue to grow to meet the market demands.
Mr. Riedman and Mr. Cantwell addressed the traffic safety concerns that were voiced by the citizens. It was noted that a traffic impact study had been performed and that improvements were designed to mitigate concerns expressed in the study. Both the Department of Transportation and the Town of Orchard Park Engineering Department have given approval to this plan, based on these improvements.
Mr. Bernard established with Mr. Riedman that there is no phase within a phase. The units will be built based on the weather conditions, with a lull in development as the project enters into the winter months. Mr. Riedman hopes to have three or four buildings available for rent by the spring and one hundred units near completion by the end of 2004. He stated that Phase I should take approximately eighteen months. There are 35 acres of open wooded space creating privacy for those who will reside here.
Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Riedman if having a connecting road would cause detraction to the property and its tenants. Mr. Riedman noted that the initial project did not propose a connecting road to Countryside Lane. However, Riedman Development submitted plans showing this connecting road to accommodate a request made by the Planning Board. He further explained that residents of the area expressed their feelings against this connecting road during a public hearing and the idea was removed from the project.
Mr. Bodden verified that Riedman Development does not own or have any options on any property contiguous to this site.
Mrs. Biryla noted that the Planning Board, by requesting a connecting access road into this site, had been practicing good planning procedures. Mrs. Biryla also displayed a colored elevation for Mrs. O’Leary to visually review.
The Chairman asked Mr. Cantwell to report on the items that the members had requested. Mr. Cantwell noted that a correspondence of 7/31/03 was sent to address these items as follows:
1. The house side shields have been noted for the site lighting, as requested.
2. The building mounted lighting fixture details were provided under separate cover by Mr. Riedman.
3. It is understood that the signage design for the entrance monument and project identification signage will be a separate application to the
Planning Board. The Conservation Board has indicated that a review of the complimentary landscaping will be requested.
4. The enclosure details were provided to the Board for the trash compactor to be located along the north part of the property line.
5. The “hot box” (water RPZ control device for the water service) will be located underground per the recommendation of the Town Engineering Department.
6. The clearing limit legend has been revised to clarify that the “proposed clearing limits” are noted.
7. We have received formal Town Engineer review comments and are in the process of addressing these comments. This includes the proposed private road pavement width.
8. The required parking has been revised to include the 2.5 spaces for the three bedroom units. This update has provided an additional 14 parking spaces. Before this revision, the requirement had been exceeded.
9. The proposed conservation easement and natural surface walking-trail are shown on the cover sheet. The limits are along the south property line and include the majority of the existing wooded area as a buffer between Orchard Park Road and the limits of disturbance for the site work. This information was reviewed with the Conservation Board members at their August 5th meeting. The legal description will be forwarded after it is completed.
10. Mr. Cantwell submitted an architectural rendering of the proposed clubhouse for the members to review. A photograph of a clubhouse is not available, as none has been built that is similar. Mrs. Biryla established that the proposed clubhouse would be constructed using the same materials and colors of the apartments agreed upon in a photograph previously submitted.
11. A maintenance policy for the forested buffer area has been provided to the members.
Mr. Bernard discussed the roof drainage system with the petitioner, who stated that the roofs facing the street would be tied into the storm system. Roofs facing the back will run off over the surface, per the D.E.C. With regards to the curb widths, Mr. Riedman explained that the original design was changed. There are no concrete gutters and the system will be moved to one side of the road and be elevated. The storm catch basins will exist on one side of the road along the edge and be made of asphalt. Mr. Riedman told the members that during his meeting with the Conservation Board, the Conservation Easement was discussed. A Conservation Board member, Mrs. Bergantz, raised concerns
regarding wood chips being used for the walking surface. Mr. Riedman stated he believes her concerns were addressed at that meeting.
Mr. Murray asked Mr. Riedman to describe and take credit for the unique design of the units. Mr. Riedman explained how the units offer disability access to all residents.
Mr. Bernard explained how the project evolved with the connecting road request from a planning point of view. He further told the citizens present that the plans are available for review in the both the Planning and Engineering Offices during normal business hours.
The Chairman made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Biryla, to TABLE this case pending resolution of Engineering issues.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Murray, to AUTHORIZE the Chairman to have a SPECIAL MEETING when Engineering approval has been obtained.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. P.B. Sub. File #3-90, Forest Creek Subdivision, Part 2A, Vacant land, east of Stoughton Lane, Zoned R-1. Requesting SEQR determination and Preliminary Approval of an eight-lot subdivision. Tabled by the Planning Board on 5/14/03.
APPEARANCE: Rob Pidanick, representing Pino-Alto Partnership
Mr. Pidanick stated that the information requested by the Planning Board at the May 2003 meeting has been provided to the members. The D.E.C. issued a correspondence indicating that it would be appropriate for this project to use the short EAF form. This is an unlisted action. The proposal is not a part of the original SEQR. The sewers and utilities were adjusted during the construction of Phase I to allow this site to be serviced. Preliminary Engineering Department approval has been granted and documents for sewer and water have been forwarded to the County Health Department.
Mr. Bernard requests that the final plans show the setback lines and asked if pins will be placed in the wetland areas. Mr. Pidanick told the members that the wetland areas would not be affected during this part of the construction. However, pins will be used in the future phase if needed. Mr. Bernard also confirmed that the access to Lot #6 would be onto the cul-de-sac. It was further established that the Conservation Board would review the landscaping for the cul-de-sac. The clearing limits will be the minimum allowed and are shown on the submitted construction plans.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Chairman Fabinsky, to GRANT Conditional Preliminary Plat Plan Approval of this eight (8) lot subdivision based on the submitted preliminary plat plan received 5/14/2003 with the following conditions.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Biryla, to WAIVE the Final Plat Plan public hearing.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. P.B. File #17-03, Orchard Park Plaza, southeast side of Orchard Park Road and Michael Road, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board approval of directional signage.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Frank Zulkowski, Lauer - Manguso & Associates
Mr. Zulkowski presented his plans for the proposed signage.
Mr. Bernard established that the signage would be illuminated from dusk to midnight and a timer will control this operation. Mr. Bernard further noted that he had a conversation with Mr. David Allan in which he was told that the proposed signs would be smaller and lower than the previous store signs.
Mrs. Biryla made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to GRANT the sign permit request based on the submitted plans received 7/29/2003 with the following conditions:
1. This is a Type II SEQR action and therefore no determination of significance is required.
2. Four (4) signs are approved and permitted by Section 144-38H.
3. The signs measure 22” high by 42” wide with a maximum overall height of 60”.
4. The sign is illuminated during the hours of dusk to midnight.
5. The signs will be located per the approved location plan date 7/29/03 and Mr. David Allan’s letter of 8/4/2003.
6. A permit fee shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-70A(1).
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
4. P.B. Sub. File #1-03, Ralph Hogg, 5475 Webster Road, Zoned B-2 Special Exception Use. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a car wash facility. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 2/19/03.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Ralph Hogg
Mr. Dean Hogg
Mr. Jerry Johnson, Johnson Equipment
Mr. Hogg presented his response to the Planning Board’s request for additional information. Mr. Bernard verified with Mr. Hogg that the plan presented shows the lighting averages for inside and outside of the buildings. Mr. Hogg told the members that measuring from property line to property line, the nearest residence on Webster Road is 204’ and that the nearest residence from California Road is 250’.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the sound level information with the members. Chairman Fabinsky noted that the reported decibel levels of 45 to 55 would be fairly quiet. The landscape plan and sound buffering were also discussed.
Mr. Bodden stated that he does not feel the nearest neighbors would be affected by noise from this project.
Mrs. Biryla discussed the car wash operation, establishing that it will be open 24 hours, with an attendant present during the day.
Chairman Fabinsky verified with the applicant where the next residential property (not indicated in the report) would lie. It was determined that the decibel levels emitted from the car wash will not adversely affect this residence, which is approximately 250’ away. It was further confirmed that the remaining trees on the property are not to be removed as part of a stipulation agreed to by Mr. Hogg during the granting of the variances for
this property with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hogg told the members that he had also agreed to eliminate one bay he proposed.
Mr. Bernard reported that he had performed decibel readings as follows; without traffic in this neighborhood (on Southwestern Boulevard) the reading is 50 decibels. On a Saturday or Sunday afternoon with traffic and background noise the reading is 60 decibels. At Mr. Hogg’s existing car wash, near Angola, without the blowers running at approximately 100 feet away the reading is approximately 55 decibels. With the three vacuum cleaners running, at approximately 100 feet away, the reading measured approximately 60 decibels. At 250’ away the reading is approximately 46 to 50 decibels.
Mr. Bernard concluded by stating that he does not believe that a problem will exist with the addition of the blowers at the proposed location. The members discussed setting a limit on the level of sound emitting from the car wash when measured from the nearest residence. It was also determined that if the sound levels do become a problem, acoustic buffering can be added to alleviate this.
Mr. Bernard verified with Mr. Hogg that the equipment doors are locked and insulated.
Chairman Fabinsky noted that Engineering approval was granted on June 20, 2003.
Chairman Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to AUTHORIZE a Building Permit for a 4,446 square foot car wash facility and APPROVE the site plan received June 11, 2003 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Long EAF Parts 1 and 2 and a Negative Declaration is recommended.
2. A Landscape Completion Bond in accordance with the Conservation Board minutes shall be provided for the approved Landscape Plan which includes 35% green space.
3. The site lighting is limited to those fixtures and poles indicated on the approved site plan. Light fixtures shall have flat lenses and house shields.
4. No outside storage or display is permitted.
5. Dumpsters as shown shall be screened, along with any additional dumpsters, in accordance with Section 144-25 of the Town Code.
6. Town Engineering Approval has been granted on 6/20/2003.
7. If the sound levels exceed 50 decibels at the property line of the nearest residence, a sound reduction system will be installed.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mrs. Biryla told Mr. Hogg that the Planning and the Zoning Board members appreciate the revised plan showing the reduction of the one bay.
Mr. Bernard also commented on the applicant being helpful and forthright with providing all information that had been requested.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
5. P.B. File #02-03, Woodbridge Construction Group, Inc., 17.86 acres of vacant land, east side of Taylor Road, Zoned R-3. Requesting rezoning from R-3 to R-3 Special Exception Use in order to construct an 80-unit townhouse project. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 8/6/03.
Mr. Bodden told the Chairman that he must recused himself from this case due to a business relationship with the applicant.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Dennis Boyle, Woodbridge Construction
Mr. Carmine Provenzano, Silvestri Architects
Mr. Sean Hopkins, Attorney
Chairman Fabinsky noted that this project is a Type 1 SEQR action, as the property is contiguous to town-owned parkland. In addition, with the town parkland being present, public access would be appropriate. The applicant is asked to modify the proposed plan to allow this.
Mr. Provenzano presented plans and an architectural rendering for the proposed 80-unit townhouse project. He told the members that a clubhouse would exist for the owners of the townhouses. Each townhouse will have a two-car garage with two additional parking spaces available. A total of 320 parking spaces will exist and the green space area will be 11.24 acres. Mr. Provenzano explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted use variances for this property on the north, west and east sides to have 50 foot
setbacks, rather than the required 75 feet. He also noted that Mr. Boyle agreed to reduce the number of units from 106 to 80.
Mr. Hopkins noted that this area has many wetlands and that his client would be more than willing to provide public access to the adjacent town parkland if that opportunity presents itself. He further acknowledged that this is a Type I action. Mr. Hopkins noted that studies had been provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals and a comprehensive environmental review had been performed. This included traffic, archeology, wetlands, school district correspondence, soil boring, and the modification of the plan for greater emergency access. Mr. Hopkins submitted two letters for the Board’s review; one letter from Mr. Don Wilson, of Wilson Environmental Technology that describes the wetland impact, the other letter from FRA Engineering, which updated the traffic study that had been previously submitted.
Mrs. Biryla expressed her complete displeasure with the design of this project to the applicants. She feels the project appears to be “a bunch of garages”. Mr. Boyle and the members discussed ways to make the design more aesthetically pleasing.
The Chairman stated that his primary concern is the access to the parkland. He asked the applicants to provide information regarding this at the next meeting. It was further established that there would be no roof top equipment located on the townhouses. The Chairman asked the applicants to comment on landscaping for the proposed project. Mr. Hopkins noted that the landscaping intentions have been provided on the submitted plans. However, they would be willing to explore the landscaping further if the Board has suggestions. The Chairman spoke regarding noise issues with Route 219 and the proposed townhouses that will exist along this area. He would like Mr. Boyle to provide information on the height difference between Route 219 and the proposed townhouses. The Chairman also asked that the applicants provide topography of the site.
Mrs. Biryla established that the units would all have a first floor master suite with the option to have the second floor consist of two bedrooms with a bathroom, or a loft with a bathroom.
Mr. Bernard reviewed the plans with the applicant and asked that the members be provided with a plan that indicates the location of the detention basin. Mr. Bernard established that Engineering has not seen the plans and that the project would be built in three phases, with the clubhouse being built first. He further requested that Mr. Boyle provide the members with plans that would show the building setbacks. Mr. Bernard noted several issues that will need to be reviewed at a future meeting in regards to the lighting plans that have been submitted for the site. He also stated that he does not see a purpose in having two driveways as shown on the plan.
The Chairman noted that the Public Safety Committee would be asked to review this project for fire safety, access and traffic regulation at a corner that creates confusion for some motorists.
Mr. Bernard noted that Page 4 of the SEQR information does not address the 100-year flood plain. He also asked the applicant to provide information on how the site would compare if single family homes were developed, rather than the proposed 80 townhouses.
Mr. Murray asked questions regarding the phased build-out of the project and the wetland areas. Mr. Boyle stated that the infrastructure that is suitable for each phase would be built. When approximately 50% of Phase I is sold, the construction of Phase II would begin. Generally, the infrastructure for Phase II would not be put in ahead. However, Mr. Hopkins noted that if areas need to be built in order to service Phase I of the project they would do this. Mr. Murray established that most of wetland “A” on the site plan will be filled in and that part of wetland "B" indicated on the site plan would be partially filled. Mr. Hopkins told the members that a permit will be obtained from the Army Corp of Engineers for any fill work. The potential townhouse buyer will not be provided with the information that the area has been filled in. The members concluded that it is desired that any mitigation of the wetland areas be confined to the nearby area. Mr. Boyle stated he would be glad to explore that opportunity. It was further noted that the design concept of the townhouses would be barrier free and adaptable for all.
Mrs. Biryla established that the starting purchase price for a townhouse would be approximately $195,000.
Chairman Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to TABLE the case pending the following:
1. This is a Type I SEQR Action and appropriate investigation of impacts will be required.
2. Alternative architectural options are requested in addition to a four-sided color rendering of the proposed townhouses.
3. Plans are requested for an access to the adjacent public parkland.
4. A 100 and 500 year flood plain outline is to be submitted.
5. Comparative data regarding traffic, school, etc… showing how the plan for the townhouses would differ from a standard R-3 use, in terms of the demand for infrastructure and community services is requested.
6. The elevation, in terms of the altitude of Route 219 and the townhouses is to be shown with a drawing that would show the height at Route 219 and the homes, across the property moving eastward. The background noise levels are requested for the area adjacent to Route 219 and eastward to the property line.
9. Preliminary concept plans for the detention area are requested.
10. The building setbacks between the property lines are to be submitted.
11. The lighting plan needs to be reviewed and updated.
12. Wetlands mitigation as discussed.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Chairman Fabinsky, to RECOMMEND that the Town Board act as lead agency in the rezoning of the property and initiate a coordinated review for this Type 1 SEQR action.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Discussion of a potential senior residential facility/single family home project on the north side of Milestrip Road, east of Orchard Park Road.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Sean Hopkins, Attorney
Mr. Doug Brackett, EDR
Mr. Tom Granville, Whitney Capital
Mr. “Skip” John Cerio, CRS Properties
Mr. Hopkins presented plans for an affordable senior housing project to be located on thirty acres south of the Riedman development project. This project was described as being similar to the Angle Road senior housing facility; however, it would have a subdivision surrounding it. The Board members asked questions that concerned taxes, and the proposed public road. The members decided to review this project at a work session.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
DATED: 8/19/03 Respectfully Submitted,
REVIEWED: 8/25/03 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
Harold T. Fabinsky
Planning Board Chairman