Minutes of the July 09, 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
Michael McGuire
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT: 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 11, 2003 Planning Board meeting was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received a copy.
Mr. Bernard noted several corrections/additions to be made to the minutes as follows:
1. Page 3, item #5: The sentence should read “Moveable items will be on display during daylight hours only.”
2. Page 7, second paragraph from the bottom: The sentence should read “Mr. Bernard noted that he would be voting nay for some of the reasons that Mr. Murray brought up and also because no noise levels have been provided.”
3. Page 8, second paragraph from the bottom, fourth sentence: The sentence should read “The cold storage building will have electricity, but no water or machinery.”
4. Page 9, item #7: The sentence should read “Reduced parking of 13 spaces shall be provided with 10 additional in reserve green space.”
5. Page 10, third paragraph, line 6: “storm” should replace “from now”.
6. Page 11, second paragraph, line 4: “51” should replace “146”.
7. Page 13, third paragraph, line 3: “288” should replace “290”.
8. Page 14, last line: “work session” should replace “special meeting.”
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to accept the minutes of the June 11, 2003 meeting.
P.B. Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #7 July 09, 2003 Page 2
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. P.B. Sub. File #38-98, Eagle Heights Subdivision, Part Eight, Zoned R-1. Requesting that the Planning Board issue its Findings Statement regarding the proposed subdivision. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was filed by the Planning Board on 5/14/2003.
APPEARANCE: Robert Pidanick, Pratt & Huth Associates
Atty. Sean Hopkins, Renaldo & Myers
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, that the Planning Board issue the Written Findings Statement dated July 9, 2003 regarding the proposed Eagle Heights Subdivision, Part Eight.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. Public Hearing, P.B. Sub. File #38-98, Eagle Heights Subdivision, Part Eight, Zoned R-1. Requesting Preliminary Approval of a 78-lot subdivision.
The Chairman called the Public Hearing to order. The Affidavit of Publication and Posting, published June 28, 2003 was presented and filed with the Board by the Planning Coordinator.
IN FAVOR:
Robert Pidanick, Pratt & Huth Associates
4950 Genesee Street
Buffalo, New York
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 3
Mr. Pidanick informed the Board that he represents the petitioner, the Marrano/ Marc Equity Corporation.
Sean Hopkins, Renaldo & Myers
350 Essjay Road
Williamsville, New York
Mr. Hopkins informed the Board that he is the attorney for the project sponsor.
Victor Martucci
Marrano/Marc Equity Corporation
Mr. Martucci informed the Board that he is the Vice-President of Marrano/Marc Equity Corporation and is in favor of the project.
AGAINST: None
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
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
APPEARANCE: Robert Pidanick, Pratt & Huth Associates
Atty. Sean Hopkins, Renaldo & Myers
Mr. Pidanick explained that this proposal is to develop 78 lots on 85 acres of land. 7.7 acres of the property will be dedicated to the Town of Orchard Park for recreation land. The project will be developed in three phases. He further stated that there is a sanitary sewer outlet that connects over to Middlebury Road that will go through the Town park. He further stated that nothing has changed on the engineering plans since the previous review was completed by the Town and Engineering Approval was obtained in December 1999.
Mr. Bernard confirmed that the public hearing and subdivision development fees were previously paid. He stated that the submitted plans do not show the house setbacks, the wooded areas to be cleared on a limited basis or the federal wetlands. He would like to see these developed in the plans submitted to the Board for Final Approval. Mr. Pidanick told the Board that he does have
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 4
a drawing that can be incorporated with the final submission that shows the clearing limits.
Mrs. Biryla asked Mr. Pidanick who would own the wetlands that exist on the site. Mr. Pidanick responded that the individual lot owners would own any wetlands on their lots, which would be subject to a deed restriction limiting any building in the wetland areas.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the developer is obligated to preserve as many trees as practicable and, to the extent there are unhealthy trees within the portion of the site that is to be preserved, those will be removed. In addition, he stated that the site will not be clear-cut and, in fact, an individual lot will not be cleared until there is a contract to purchase that lot.
Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Pidanick if street lighting is proposed for this subdivision. Mr. Pidanick responded that, similar to the previous phases of Eagle Heights, there is no street lighting proposed for this phase of the subdivision. Mr. Bernard stated that the Planning Board has historically requested street lighting in new subdivisions and he feels that the developer would have to obtain Town Board approval in order to not install street lighting.
Mr. Yates told the Board that, in the past, the Town Board has granted exceptions for the Eagle Heights Subdivision to not have street lighting. Deputy Attorney Wolf stated that the Town Board could require street lighting as part of the Public Improvement Permit, but has not done so in the past for Eagle Heights. 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”.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Biryla to Grant Conditional Preliminary Plat Plan Approval for this 78- lot subdivision based on the submitted preliminary plat plan received 1/15/2001 with the following conditions:
1. This is a Type I SEQR action based on the submitted FEIS and a Positive Declaration was made on 3/13/2002, with the FEIS accepted on 5/14/2003 and a Written Findings Statement adopted by the Planning Board on 7/09/2003.
2. Public Hearing and Subdivision Development fees have been paid.
3. Recreation area per Section 25-4 of the Town Code shall be provided and deeded prior to the Final Plat Plan Public Hearing.
4. One (1) Street Tree per the Conservation Board Street Tree Plan shall be provided on each lot per Section 121-66 of the Town Code.
5. Town Engineering Approval was granted on 12/08/1999.
6.A landscape plan shall be provided for approval by the Planning Board for the cul-de-sac areas and the Redbrick and Hearthstone Terrace entrances prior to Final Plat Plan approval.
7. Alignment of the entranceway off of Redbrick Road shall be included on the plans with landscaping details prior to Final Plat Plan approval.
8. The final plat plan shall detail federal wetlands and wooded preservation areas.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mrs. Biryla stated that she has no intention of holding up the project in any way, but she does not approve of not having street lights in that area. She feels that, with the large number of children in the area, it should be lit better than it is.
Mr. Bernard stated that he agrees with Mrs. Biryla regarding street lights.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. Public Hearing, P.B. Sub. File #6-94, Birdsong Subdivision, Part 3A, 73 acres of vacant land as an extension of Birdsong Parkway, Zoned R-1. Requesting Preliminary Approval of a 77-lot subdivision.
The Chairman called the Public Hearing to order. The Affidavit of Publication and Posting, published June 28, 2003 was presented and filed with the Board by the Planning Coordinator.
IN FAVOR:
Dominic Piestrak, DPS Southwestern
Mr. Piestrak informed the Board that he is co-owner of the subdivision and is in favor of the subdivision.
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 6
Robert Pidanick, Pratt & Huth Associates
4950 Genesee Street
Buffalo, New York
Mr. Pidanick informed the Board that he represents the petitioner, DPS Southwestern as the consulting engineer and is in favor of the project.
Nicholas Piestrak, Birdsong Development
Mr. Piestrak informed the Board that he is in favor of the project.
AGAINST: None
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
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
APPEARANCE: Robert Pidanick, Pratt & Huth Associates
Dominic Piestrak, developer
Nicholas Piestrak, developer
Mr. Pidanick explained to the Board that this next phase of the Birdsong Subdivision involves developing 77 lots on 73 acres of land. He noted that he brought to the meeting the overall Tree Conservation Plan that shows how Part 3A would relate to it. In addition, he stated that the utilities would be extensions of existing facilities.
Mr. Fabinsky asked Mr. Pidanick how the configuration of the conservation areas changed. Mr. Pidanick responded that the current Conservation Plan has an increase of 1.2 acres of additional land to be preserved over the original plan that was approved.
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”.
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 7
Mr. Bernard stated that, according to his calculations, from Part One through Part Two it appears that .3 acre of conservation area has been lost. In addition, when he looked at Part 3A, his calculations show a loss of approximately one acre. He is concerned that as the subdivision progresses there will be additional losses of acreage in the conservation areas. Additionally, he is concerned that, once Part 3A is approved, the land earmarked for preservation may not end up being preserved because of Engineering concerns regarding drainage and the land taken out of the preservation area may have been worth preserving. Mr. Dominic Piestrak responded that Pratt & Huth’s numbers do not agree with Mr. Bernard’s.
Mr. Fabinsky would like the petitioner to mark out the preservation areas in the field so that the Planning Board can see what has been lost and gained in the conservation areas. Mr. Dominic Piestrak responded that that would not be feasible. Mr. Bernard suggested marking up an aerial map so that the Planning Board can better visualize the conservation areas in Parts One through Three.
Mr. Bernard confirmed that the public hearing and subdivision development fees have been paid.
Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Yates if the Town Engineer has signed the Preliminary Approval form. Mr. Yates responded that he is not sure whether or not the Town Engineer signed the form yet.
Mr. Bernard noted that the Board does not have a full set of engineering plans to review for this subdivision. He would also like an updated plan submitted showing the relationship between Part 3A and the rest of Part 3. He asked Mr. Pidanick if, after building Part 3A, the developer will have used up the sanitary sewer capacity of the existing gravity sewer system. Mr. Pidanick responded that he believes that all of Part 3 will be able to be developed before reaching capacity regarding the existing gravity sewer system.
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”. He further stated that the Board has correspondence from the Public Safety Committee recommending that the best safety alignment would be a four-way cross instead of an off-set situation. Mr. Pidanick stated that he was under the impression that the Public Safety Committee met in March and, after reviewing the safety issues at Birdsong Subdivision, concluded that there are no safety issues of concern. Mr. Fabinsky replied that it appears that something caused the Public Safety Committee to reconsider, because at its April meeting the Committee recommended that the two roads be changed to a 4-way intersection instead of being off-set.
Mr. Dominic Piestrak stated that he was told by the previous Town Engineer to off-set the cul-de-sacs, which is why they are off-set on the current plans. In order to change them back to a four-way cross, it would require him to re-
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 8
engineer the roads. He is concerned that when the Public Safety Committee originally reviewed this issue they did not have a problem with it. He also noted that there will not be a great amount of traffic on these roads.
Mr. Bernard stated that the most recent Public Safety Committee recommendation is that the safest alignment is a four-way cross. He feels that without additional information that disputes this, this is the last recommendation on record the Board has to review.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that he understands that the developer received differing feedback and recommendations from different parts of Town government, and the Board regrets the inconvenience this poses for the developer. Mr. Dominic Piestrak responded that he off-set the roads because he was told to by a Town official and to now be told to re-do the plans is not something he is happy about. Mr. Fabinsky explained that the Planning Board’s interest is in this being the best possible layout and the safest possible environment.
Mrs. Biryla feels that when the developer first conceptually laid out the subdivision, the Town Engineer insisted on the cul-de-sacs being off-set. She stated that she spoke to Mr. Yates before the meeting and was told that the Town Engineer does not have a preference regarding the layout of these two roads. Additionally, she feels that the Public Safety Committee should not have changed its recommendation from one month to the next. She feels the Town should not make a petitioner suffer because there seems to be so many changes of opinion. She further stated that she would support the plan as presented with the cul-de-sacs off-set.
Mr. Bodden stated that he thinks it would be unfair to make the petitioner change the subdivision plan at this late stage in the process. He feels that there are just as many pros as cons when considering the two alternatives.
Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Yates how far apart the two cul-de-sacs are proposed to be. Mr. Yates responded that they would be 150 feet apart. Mr. McNamara stated that he would accept the subdivision as presented.
Mr. Majchrzak does not feel that it is appropriate make the petitioner re-engineer the layout at this time.
Mrs. Biryla stated that she admires the fact that Mr. Majchrzak lives in the Birdsong Subdivision and has in the past raised concerns, but is able to look at the project objectively.
Mr. Murray and Mr. McGuire also are comfortable with the plan as presented with the off-set cul-de-sacs.
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 9
Mr. Bernard would like clarification from the Public Safety Committee regarding its recommendation or an understanding from Pratt & Huth
regarding the advantages and disadvantages of both scenarios. He does not want to go against the Public Safety Committee’s recommendations.
Mr. Fabinsky asked Mr. Pidanick if there is a way to use traffic control devices to ensure the safety of the residents in the vicinity of the two cul-de-sacs. Mr. Pidanick responded that they would propose stop signs at the intersections of both roads with the main road. There would be no stop sign on the main thoroughfare.
Mr. Majchzrak confirmed with the petitioner that there are no blind spots in either direction.
Mrs. Biryla made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden to Grant Conditional Preliminary Plat Plan Approval for this 77-lot subdivision based on the submitted preliminary plat plan received 2/14/2003 with the following conditions:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action and, based on the Written Findings Statement issued by the Planning Board on 8/14/1996, no further SEQR action is required.
2. Public Hearing and Subdivision Development fees have been paid.
3. Recreation area per Section 25-4 of the Town Code has been deeded to the Town of Orchard Park.
4. One (1) Street Tree per the Conservation Board Street Tree Plan shall be provided on each lot per Section 121-66 of the Town Code.
5. Preliminary Approval is granted subject to Town Engineering Approval.
6. The Planning Board requests that the petitioner provide an aerial map with overlays of the original conservation areas and the new proposed conservation areas.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Murray asked if the Engineering Department has received the subdivision plans. Mr. Yates responded that it has, and they have been reviewing them. Mr. Murray asked if an approval has been granted. Mr. Yates responded that he does not believe that the Town Engineer has officially signed the Preliminary Approval document, but the Engineering Department has not found anything with the plans that would prevent it from receiving Engineering Preliminary Approval.
Mr. Bernard stated that he would be voting in opposition because the engineering plans are not available to the Board to review and because the Board does not have the signed Preliminary Approval document from the Town Engineer. He
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 10
also feels that the aerial overlay the Board has requested will be important for the Board to review.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that he would be voting in opposition for the same reasons, although he supports the project in concept.
Mrs. Biryla asked Mr. Yates if he feels this not signing the document was simply an oversight on the Town Engineer’s part. Mr. Yates responded that he feels that it was an oversight.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY NAY
BERNARD NAY
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY NAY
THE MOTION BEING FOUR (4) IN FAVOR AND THREE (3) IN OPPOSITION, THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
4. P.B. File #12-03, Walter Schmidt, 14.34 acres of vacant land, east side of California Road, south of Big Tree Road, Zoned R-3. Requesting rezoning from R-3 to R-3 Special Exception Use in order to construct a townhouse project. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 5/21/2003. Tabled by the Planning Board on 6/11/03.
APPEARANCE: Doug Bennett, TVGA Consultants
Mr. Bennett noted that he appeared before the Board in June and since then he has attempted to answer some of the questions posed at that meeting. He stated that, regarding the demand for the project, he feels that the demand is still high for this type of project and there have not been any new projects such as this built in the Town since the project was first proposed. Mr. Bernard asked if there is a market study the Board could review. Mr. Bennett replied that there has been no formal specific market study done, to his knowledge.
Mr. Bennett stated that he spoke with Mr. Ray Morningstar and was informed that recently there has been a decrease in the number of students in the District and the District is prepared to absorb the enrollment increase due to this project with little or no financial impact on the District. He further stated that townhouses usually cater to people without school age children and are usually one- and two-bedroom units. He anticipates a total of 24 children added to the school system over the build-out period of the project.
Regarding the impact of this project on the health and safety of the neighborhood, Mr. Bennett stated that traffic and drainage seem to be the two
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 11
most significant issues. He explained that a Traffic Study was performed and a summary of that study has been provided to the Board for its review. He stated
that, other than the intersection of Big Tree Road and California Road, which has been taken care of with the installation of the traffic signal, there will not be any decreases in level of service due to the development of this project.
Mr. Bennett noted that a detention system is included in the project design to reduce the impact on existing drainage facilities. He stated that, during the environmental review phase when this project was initially proposed in 1997, the Town Board required that a detailed drainage design be presented. This drainage design was reviewed by Pratt & Huth Associates of behalf of the Town of Orchard Park and was found to meet the requirements of the Town for developments of this type at that time. He spoke with the Town Engineer and was informed that, in addition to the drainage design, the Engineering Department also requires that Stage Two detention for a 100-year storm be provided. This would require an increase in the capacity of the proposed detention basin.
Mr. Bernard stated that he feels it would be difficult to grant Special Exception Use without understanding the impact of this drainage issue and how the front buildings would be laid out in relationship to the detention pond or ponds. Mr. Bennett explained that the detention ponds would not be deep and would have no water in them except during the types of storms they are designed for.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that he drove by the site several times and feels that this development would change the whole character of the neighborhood. He has concerns about allowing development that changes the neighborhood so drastically. He sees no attempt in the plans to visually buffer the neighbors.
Mr. Bennett noted that renderings of the proposed project were prepared, which were submitted to the Board. He stated that since the June meeting additional plantings and small berms have been added to the plan. He noted that the site is heavily treed on the south side, and both the north and south property lines are heavily treed. The front is the only area where there is not much existing vegetation.
Mr. McNamara stated that he feels this project is completely out of character with the existing neighborhood and would have a difficult time supporting the existing layout of the project. He also asked if the petitioner has considered reducing the density of the project. Mr. Bennett responded that the petitioner has reduced the number of units slightly since the initial submittal and, because the property is long and narrow, there is not much that can be done differently with the layout. He further noted that all of the required setbacks are met.
Mr. Bodden confirmed that an alternative to this project would be a single-family home subdivision, which the petitioner might consider if the townhouse project is not approved. Mr. Bodden feels that a subdivision would have a greater impact on the Town than a townhouse project.
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 12
Mrs. Biryla feels that a subdivision would have a greater impact on the school system because, typically, families move into subdivision, whereas empty-nesters or young couples move into townhouses.
Mrs. Biryla asked what the asking price would be for these townhouses. Mr. Bennett replied that the prices would probably be between $129,000 and $169,000.
Mr. Bodden stated that the Planning Board would like to see colored elevations of the proposed buildings.
Mr. Fabinsky feels that this project is attempting to put too much development on a small site. He does not feel that the petitioner has made a significant effort to make the project fit in with the surrounding area.
Mr. Bennett responded that there would be a homeowners’ association and there will be no dumpsters. The road will be private and all of the maintenance such as plowing, garbage pick up, etc. would be contracted by the homeowners’ association.
Mr. Bernard noted that, in the information provided by the petitioner regarding a comparison between a single family home subdivision and townhouses, single family homes will produce less traffic, sewage and water than townhouses. Mr. Bennett replied that, regarding the traffic impact, most traffic computer programs used by engineering firms do not make a big distinction between townhouses and single family homes.
Mr. Bernard stated that the Board will require clear identification of the type of landscaping proposed on the site. How the neighbors would be buffered from this project is important in making a decision regarding Special Exception Use as to whether or not this project can fit in to the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. McGuire views this as the developer attempting to maximize his profit on this piece of property by putting in as many units as possible, and he feels it affects the character of the surrounding neighborhood. He would find it difficult to accept the design as presented.
Mr. Murray noted that in the SEQR documentation the petitioner states that there will be no significant effect on the neighborhood from additional traffic generated from this project. Additionally, at the June Planning Board meeting, Mr. Bennett stated that there is no significant traffic impact. However, in the documentation provided to the Board on July 1, Mr. Bennett states that the most significant safety issue affecting adjacent neighbors appears to be traffic. He asked Mr. Bennett to respond to this apparent disparity. Mr. Bennett replied that perhaps he should have chosen more appropriate wording in the July 1, 2003 document. He noted that in the July 1, 2003 document, he was simply saying that traffic seems to be an important issue to the Town regarding safety. Mr. Murray requested that Mr. Bennett clarify his position relative to traffic and whether or not it is a significant issue.
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 13
Mr. Bennett stated that the petitioner, Mr. Walter Schmidt, met with some of the neighbors in the area recently and the only issue Mr. Bennett is aware that was brought up by the neighbors was the detention basin.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard to TABLE this case to afford the petitioner an opportunity to:
1. Provide colored elevations of the buildings that accurately identify what the project would look like.
2. Redesign of the project in a manner that would be more consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
3. Begin to identify the concerns of the neighbors in a way that will allow him to address those concerns rather than dismiss them.
4. Provide a landscape plan that matches the elevations with the detention area showing how it fits in with the layout of the project and what type of buffering and screening is proposed.
5. Provide the Board with a redesigned site plan showing a reduction in density.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mrs. Biryla asked Mr. Bennett if he thinks the petitioner would consider building single family homes instead of townhouses in order to keep more in character with the neighborhood and in order to avoid the opposition from the neighbors and the Town. If the petitioner does not want to build single family homes on this site, she would like to see a reduction in the density.
Mr. Bernard stated that he agrees with Mrs. Biryla.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
5. P.B. Sub. File #33-98, proposed Knoche Farms Estates Subdivision, Vacant land, north side of Milestrip Road, west of Transit Road, Zoned R-2. Requesting SEQR determination of a 97-lot subdivision. Pre-Application Findings Review made on 7/08/98 and 3/10/99.
APPEARANCE: Robert Pidanick, Pratt & Huth Associates
Mark Hanna, Environmental Audits
Andrew Leja, Hiscock & Barclay
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 14
Mr. Pidanick reviewed with the Board that the petitioner, M.A. Tufillaro Builders, is requesting a SEQR determination based on the evidence that has been submitted to date and information to be presented at this meeting. He explained that this proposal is for 97 single family homes to be built on a 78-acre parcel.
He further noted that there is also a 7.2 acre piece of land within the proposed subdivision that is proposed to be recreation land and that a stub street is proposed on the west side of the subdivision, as well as a connecting road to the proposed Highlands of Orchard Park subdivision to the east. In addition, a wetted pond is proposed in the northeast corner of the subdivision.
Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Pidanick to describe the boundaries of Lot #78. Mr. Pidanick responded that lot #78 includes half of the lake and goes all the way around the lake and would include the land on the northwest side of the lake, which would probably remain forever green.
Mr. Pidanick stated that, because there is not a way to service the development with gravity sewers because of the lay of the land, this subdivision would be serviced by a sanitary sewage pump station which is going to be located at the rear of sublot #86. He further stated that the pump station is designed to also accommodate the proposed Highlands of Orchard Park subdivision sewage.
Mr. Pidanick noted that the Orchard Park Central School District commissioned a forecasting study to be done incorporating 35 subdivisions that were being planned, including the proposed Knoche Farms subdivision. Pratt & Huth has projected the number of students to be generated from this subdivision to be 78 at full build-out.
Mr. Pidanick discussed the stormwater and the pond maintenance plans for the subdivision. He stated that the adjoining homeowners of the retention basin would each own their piece of the pond. The Town of Orchard Park would have the right of access to get to the inlet pipes and the outlet pipes and would assume no responsibility for the maintenance of the pond.
Mr. Fabinsky referenced a memo from the Town Engineer to the Planning Board regarding sanitary sewer service to the subdivision. He explained that the Town Engineer indicated that sanitary sewer service remains an outstanding issue, alluding to a 1994 agreement between the Town of Orchard Park and Erie County for use of the County sanitary sewers on Milestrip Road. The agreement specified daily amounts the Town could contribute to the County sewer system, and, as the Highlands of Orchard Park and Knoche Farms subdivisions were not included in that agreement and were not part of the agreement area, it would be necessary for the Town and the County to approve the amendment of this agreement. Mr. Pidanick responded that this, in fact, is true and is an administrative issue that would have to be dealt with between the Town and the County. He further explained that Pratt & Huth has performed a sewer capacity analysis study to demonstrate that the sanitary sewers along Milestrip Road can handle the sewage generated by this subdivision and the study was verified by a letter from Erie County concurring that the capacity is there.
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 15
Mr. Bernard stated that, when the Town does agree to amend the agreement, it would be excluding other areas that were in the agreement area. Mr. Pidanick replied that the County did not, because of the capacity that does exist there, think that the agreement needed to be amended. However, the Town wants to be sure to account for that so that someone is not left out who was part of the original service area.
Mr. Pidanick noted that in 2000 Pratt & Huth performed a traffic study and the traffic generated from this subdivision will not adversely affect Milestrip Road or the intersection of Milestrip Road and Transit Road. Additionally, there would be public water lines servicing this development and there is adequate pressure and flow for both domestic use and fire protection. He also noted that there is a .58- acre federal wetland on the site that would have to be impacted by the construction of the entrance. The petitioner will obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to impact the wetland area. In addition, he noted that there are no threatened or endangered animals found on the site by the consultants who examined the site for the petitioner.
Mr. Pidanick stated that a Stage I and Stage IB Cultural Resource Investigation was conducted on the site. There were some finds on the site, but none was considered to be of historical importance.
Mr. Pidanick reviewed that the issue the Planning Board was most concerned with the last time the petitioner came before the Board was potential groundwater contamination.
Mr. Fabinsky explained that every proposed subdivision adjacent to the former Nike Base has received a Positive Declaration and the Board has received much informationr regarding the groundwater conditions but does not know exactly how to interpret this information.
Mr. Pidanick introduced Mr. Mark Hanna from Environmental Audits. Mr. Hanna stated that the last time he appeared before the Board on behalf of this subdivision the Board had several concerns. He stated that he had prepared information to attempt to answer these questions.
Mr. Hanna stated that there have been a number of studies done that have produced environmental data from other properties in the area of this proposed subdivision, including the Highlands of Orchard Park, the Gernold subdivision, Barrington Heights subdivision and Orchard Heights. He further stated that there is a regional relationship in the data that has been collected, both for soil and groundwater, and that there are not great differences between those data. He told the Board that he has data with him that will show that its concerns regarding soil and water contamination in this area are not well based.
Mr. Hanna gave a lengthy description of what the basis is for the development of standards used when making determinations as to whether or not substances identified on a property provide any kind of health impact to humans. He
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 16
explained that the United States Environmental Protection Agency maintains a health effects assessment based on data received over the past 35 years. This data base serves as a basis for how the environmental standards are developed. The environmental standards are developed using criteria that are health-based. The criteria has two aspects: chronic exposures of humans and acute toxicity
systemic poisoning. Another aspect of the criteria involves chemical impacts on surface waters and ground waters with regard to drinking water quality.
Mr. Hanna explained that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation and the N.Y.S. Department of Health have jointly developed environmental quality standards for water and for soil. These standards are to be used as a basis to determine whether or not there is contamination on a property and whether or not further investigation and/or remedial activities need to be completed.
Mrs. Biryla commented that all of this technical data would be included in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement if the Board issues a Positive Declaration on this project. Mr. Leja asked the Board to allow Mr. Hanna to finish his presentation and explain the standards so that when he presents the data the Board will understand what it means.
The Planning Coordinator asked Mr. Hanna if the data he was presenting could be provided to the Board in writing so that each member, on his/her own time, could digest it. Mr. Hanna replied that it would be very difficult to do that. The Board decided to allow Mr. Hanna to continue.
Mr. Hanna showed the Board data regarding soil samples for volatile organic contaminants for Knoche Farms, Highlands of Orchard Park, Barrington Heights and the Gernold subdivision. He noted that the number of detections in this category is extremely limited. No samples exceeded the environmental standards the State finds as applicable and therefore volatile contaminants do not have an environmental impact in the soil samples. Some of the samples were identified as being decontamination substances, such as solvents for cleaning equipment.
Regarding heavy metals and soils, Mr. Hanna presented data that shows that in some areas tested the Eastern United States Background Level was exceeded, but he explained that, because of the variability of the soil chemistry in New York State, New York State has a provision that localized site background conditions be addressed, which becomes the clean-up standard. The data presented showed low levels of cadmium detected on the Knoche property in one sample, but Mr. Hanna stated that these are background levels. He stated that these are relatively low numbers.
Regarding groundwater, Mr. Hanna presented data that shows that the Highlands of Orchard Park had no evidence of volatile man-made contaminants. Three different substances were found on the Knoche property at low levels, just above the background levels for groundwater.
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 17
Mr. Hanna stated that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation noted that low levels of several volatile organic compounds were detected in the groundwater samples. The D.E.C. further commented that the metals results most likely reflect the background concentrations in on-site soils and that, since
public water supply is to be provided for this development, it seems highly unlikely that there would be a concern for human exposure to the low level of contaminants detected in shallow groundwater, which likely does not even provide a reliable source of water anyway.
In conclusion, Mr. Hanna stated that there is not a considerable human health issue on this property. No volatile organic compounds were detected on the Knoche property. Metals were found in the soil, but it is at background levels. Volatile organic compounds were detected in the groundwater, but even the State says these are low levels. Metals in the groundwater were found, but again were at background levels. Mr. Hannna’s professional opinion is that this property basically represents normal environmental conditions for this area of the Town of Orchard Park and can be developed as a residential development without potential for human health effects.
Mr. Bernard noted a letter from May 2000 regarding a property line issue with a neighbor and asked if this has been resolved. Mr. Mark Tufillaro stated that the issue has been resolved.
Mr. Bernard stated that the Board would like a written summary of this presentation provided for its review.
Mr. Murray stated that the comment “mitigation is providing public water” seems to mean that anyone who might fill a pool with the groundwater or water plants with it will not be doing it in an unfiltered way. He feels this is not very supportive of the petitioner’s claim that it is safe to develop the property.
Mrs. Biryla still feels that a Positive Declaration is the appropriate action for the Planning Board to take on this request.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden that the Planning Board DECLARE itself LEAD AGENCY.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
P.B. Mtg. #9 Regular Mtg. #7 July 9, 2003 Page 18
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Bodden made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to TABLE this case pending receipt of an executive summary of the presentation given at this meeting.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
6. P.B. File #34-01, Delia Car Company, 3518 Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2. Special Exception Use. Requesting Planning Board approval of a revised site plan. Original site plan approval granted by the Town Board on 2/02/02. Tabled by the Planning Board on 4/9/03.
APPEARANCE: Tim Arlington, Apex Consulting
Frank Delia, Delia Car Company
Mr. Bodden stated that the Erie County resolution approving the sale of the additional property to Mr. Delia will be voted upon on July 10, 2003. Mr. Delia stated that a sale price has been agreed upon.