Minutes of the September 10, 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
Michael McGuire
William McNamara
Phillip Murray
EXCUSED: Paul Bodden
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT: David Holland, Assistant Building Inspector
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Sarah desJardins, Planning Coordinator
Gregg Mistretta, Junior Engineer
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 August 13, 2003 Planning Board meetings were unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Murray noted the following addition to the minutes; Page 7, paragraph two, insert the word “disability” so the sentence will read, “Mr. Reidman explained how the units offer disability access to all residents”.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Biryla to accept the minutes of the August 13, 2003 meeting as amended.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. P.B. Sub. File #27-88, proposed Chestnut Ridge Village, Phases 6, 7 and 8, Vacant land as an extension of Arrowhead Drive and Breezewood Drive, Zoned R-2. Requesting that the Planning Board authorize the Chairman to schedule a Public Hearing for Final Approval of a 99-lot extension of the Chestnut Ridge Village subdivision when appropriate. Preliminary Approval granted by the Planning Board on 3/08/89.
APPEARANCE: Gene Jason, property owner/developer
Glenn Cooley, Engineer
Mr. Jason stated that the second egress to this development has been acquired. A copy of the purchase contract, contingent upon Planning Board approval, had been sent to the members for their review.
Mrs. Biryla verified with Mr. Jason that the housing would be similar to the standards and quality that exist in the current phases of the subdivision.
The members discussed having the installation of the infrastructure for Phases 6, 7 & 8 be made more specific. This information should include how access will be obtained to build Phases 6, 7 & 8. A concern exists that the second egress road might never be built. The members would like the plan to show the development of this road to be completed as early as possible. Mr. Jason agreed to provide a complete set of plans for each phase that will show how the phases will be tied-in together as they are developed. The Chairman stated that he would like the plan to describe water, traffic patterns and public safety.
Mr. Cooley noted that the Town Engineering Department is reviewing the plans submitted and that he is awaiting further comments.
Mr. Bernard noted that he would like the plan to address street lights, street names and location, any wetlands located here and he would like the plans to define clearing limits by providing an aerial photo overlay to show what is being cleared. He would also like to know how the developer would maintain undisturbed healthy trees.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to TABLE this case pending the receipt of the following:
1. Submittal of a plan detailing how the project will be developed, specifically identifying elements of infrastructure in terms of roadways, utilities and how they will be sequenced.
2. Provide a set of plans that will show the anticipated clearing limits.
3. Provide an aerial photo overlay to show what is being cleared.
4. Document how control will be retained on the vegetation on the lots in order to prevent strip clearing.
5. Detail the street names.
6. Give an explanation of the Phases and how they will be developed.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. P.B. File #13-00, proposed Broxton Heath Subdivision, Vacant land, south side of Powers Road, east of Candy Lane, Zoned R-2. Requesting that the Planning Board authorize the Chairman to schedule a Public Hearing for Preliminary Approval of a five-lot subdivision when appropriate. Pre-Application Findings made on 5/14/03.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Richard Brox, owner/developer
The members noted that this project has outstanding engineering and SEQR issues. Mr. Brox told the members that the information that the Planning Board had requested was submitted. He also stated that the remaining Engineering and SEQR issues had been addressed. The Chairman told Mr. Brox that the Board needs this information in order to move forward and they had not found it available for their review.
Mr. Bernard verified with Mr. Brox that the request is to have a pond entirely located on one lot. The pond is now located on lot #5. Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Brox if he is comfortable having a house placed on lot #1 with a wetland area existing there. Mr. Brox stated that he saw no problem with Lot #1 having a 3,000 sq. ft. home built there with a septic system, noting that the parcel consists of almost six acres. Mr. Bernard noted that a correspondence dated 4/18/01 from Ruth Pierpoint, of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation sent to Mr. Brox’s engineer has not yet been responded to. Mr. Brox had not been aware of this correspondence and a copy will be provided to him.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. McGuire, to TABLE this case pending receipt of the following:
1. A response addressing the letter of 4/18/01 from Ruth Pierpoint.
2. Confirmation that the septic systems are acceptable to the Health Department with the pond in the vicinity.
3. Engineering review of the traffic site distance, confirming that it is not an issue.
4. The wetland areas located at the west and east boundary line may be disturbed.
5. Engineering concerns must be addressed regarding drainage and pond maintenance.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. 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 5/21/03. Tabled by the Planning Board on 6/11/03 and 7/9/03.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Walter Schmidt, property owner/developer
Mr. Doug Bennett, TVGA Engineering
Ms. Connie Lyden, Lyden Landscape and Design
Mr. Schmidt stated the project has been redesigned to consist of 48 units in order to reduce the density. This reduction has enabled the setbacks to be increased to 143 feet on one side of the project and 109 feet on the other side. In addition, the road was also redesigned to be a curvilinear road. The detention area was redesigned to address Engineering requirements for a 100-year storm and three-foot berms have been designed in front of the detention pond. Connie Lyden, Landscape Architect for the project, described to the members how the proposed landscaping development for the project would help to blend and soften the site. It was learned that a
one-foot berm located in front of a wetland area had been recommended by the D.E.C. to protect the wetland area.
Mr. McNamara told Mr. Schmidt that he wants the neighborhood disrupted as little as possible. He requests that the Conservation Board review the landscape plan.
Mrs. Biryla reviewed the color elevation presented and told Mr. Schmidt that this plan is an improvement from what had been previously presented.
Mr. Schmidt described the units to the members. It was noted that the units would be available in several different combinations. The members reviewed the plan presented and discussed the layout of the townhouses. Mrs. Biryla asked Mr. Schmidt to provide a black and white draft sketch depicting the various combinations of the units that will be used in order for her to view what is being proposed. The members would also like various views depicted; for example, front and side.
Mr. McGuire noted that the plan being presented did not match the color elevation being presented. He further commented that the Board was being asked to vote on this project with this inconsistency. Mr. Schmidt stated that it was his fault and that the plan submitted was preliminary.
It was determined that the members would like Mr. Schmidt to present a sketch that would be in agreement with his proposed plan. The members want views depicted that include the projected view from the street and from neighbor’s houses in order to examine how the proposed project will appear to neighbors in the area. A very minimal amount of tree removal will take place with this project.
Mr. Bernard verified the following with the applicants; all wetland areas are shown on the site plan. The wetland areas exist along the southwest corner and along the northwest side of the property. Of the 14.34 acres, approximately 6 or 7 acres will be disturbed and the number of buildings initially proposed remains the same, with the number of units being decreased from 51 to 48. Mr. Bernard also reviewed the remaining SEQR items with Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Bennett stated that he had not realized that there still remained open issues.
Mr. Murray stated that two contradictory items still exist with the SEQR regarding traffic. He further told Mr. Schmidt that he feels the elevation facing California Road should have more invested in its appearance in order to address the “character of the neighborhood” issue. Mr. Murray feels that by the blending of the project with the neighborhood, Mr. Schmidt may find less resistance to the “character of the neighborhood” issue.
Chairman Fabinsky, made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. McNamara, to TABLE this case pending the receipt of the following information:
1. Details of trees, including caliper and height at planting and a review of the landscape plan with a recommendation made by the Conservation Board.
2. The projected views from California Road and the location of the immediately adjacent neighbors’ homes.
3. Updated blue prints are to be provided that will match the proposed structures.
4. A rendition in black and white of all the structures that are planned to be built in this project.
5. Analysis of differences in demand on infrastructure between townhouses and a traditional R-3 use; the differential impact.
6. Resolution of the SEQR inconsistencies in the traffic report referenced by Mr. Murray.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
4. P.B. File #15-03, Benderson Development, Vacant land in the Tops Plaza parking area, northeast corner of Orchard Park Road and Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a 3,600-sq. ft. Wyoming County Bank building. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 7/16/03.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Larry Fineberg, Benderson Development Company
Mr. Doug Scheid, Scheid Architectural
Jon Cooper, Wyoming County Bank
Marty Griffin, Wyoming County Bank
Mr. Fineberg presented a parking analysis for the members to review. This Parking Analysis is as follows:
PARKING BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRED SPACES
Retail 149,585sf @ 1 car per 200sf 747
Tops Express 250sf @ 1 car per 200sf 1
Total Parking Based on Square Footage: 748
EMPLOYEE PARKING
Tops 70
Steinmart 22
Colonial Liquor 8
Total Tan 3
Cardsmart 4
Supercuts 5
Watsons Chocolates 2
Game Stop 2
Tops Express 1
Total Employee Parking 117
PARKING BASED ON SEATING:
Tops (12 seats) 6
Watsons (12 seats) 6
Tim Horton’s/Wendy’s 5,427sf@1 54
Car per 150sf or 1 car per each 2 seats
Total Parking Based on Seating: 66
Total Pre-Bank Parking Required: 931
Retail Development with 3,500SF Bank
Pre Bank Retail Development: 931
Proposed Bank 3,500sf @ 1 car per 200sf 18
8 Employees 8
Total Parking Required: 957
Pre Bank Parking Provided: 879
Parking lost due to New Bank (53)
Parking Added 151
Total Parking Provided: 977
Based on the information presented, Mr. Fineberg told the members why he believes that there are no problems with the number of parking spaces located within the plaza. Mr. Fineberg noted that he did not want to sacrifice green space for parking that most likely will not be used. He further indicated, on the site plan, additional property owned by Benderson Development. Mr. Fineberg stated that he feels that whatever parking is needed could be accommodated.
Mr. McNamara, based on his review of the information presented, does not feel that parking will be a problem. He requests that a motion be fashioned to add 35 parking spaces to this site. If parking becomes a problem, additional spaces can be added later.
Mrs. Biryla believes that the ordinance requirements are excessive for the plaza. She does not see requiring 200 parking spaces for Stein Mart as a realistic number. Mrs. Biryla stated that she does not have a problem with the reduction in the number of parking spaces.
Chairman Fabinsky stated that he frequents the plaza and has not observed a problem with parking. He appreciates the idea of not paving areas that may never need to be used, but he believes it is important to provide a contingency option to do that. He further stated that the Board has the option to negotiate this.
Mr. Bernard reviewed the parking space information that had been presented by Mr. Fineberg. He told Mr. Fineberg that he did not feel parking at the site would be as readily available during the winter months due to the storage of snow removal. Mr. Bernard also stated that he believes the parking between Top’s and the side of Lowe’s will become an issue, as he believes Lowe’s will be using this area more than the rest of the plaza. He believes that the required (116) additional parking spaces are important in order to make the numbers work for the rest of the plaza.
Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Fineberg to describe the traffic pattern with the addition of the proposed 35 parking spaces between Tops and Lowe’s. He also asked what would occur to the berm located at the back, when installing these parking spaces. Mr. Fineberg stated that the proposed Lowe’s store would have a dramatic impact on the existing berm and that it would be difficult to predict what changes will occur. The existing berm will be moved in order to add the 35 additional parking spaces. Mr. Bernard reviewed the previous plan with Mr. Fineberg. It was determined that a turn around space will still exist at this area between Tops and Lowe’s. Mr. Mistretta, Junior Assistant Town Engineer, stated that engineering is requiring more detail regarding the parking aspects of the plan.
Mr. McGuire spoke regarding the parking, noting that the proposed parking on the northeast side of Lowe’s is “off-premises” parking and that an individual will have to pull out on to Southwestern Boulevard to stay on plaza owned property. Mr. McGuire does not see this as an advantage. He also believes the parking in the facility does not follow the commitment made to Taffy’s. Mr. Fineberg referenced a letter that he sent addressing this issue, noting that there will be no impact to Taffy’s.
Mr. Murray asked Mr. Fineberg if he considers the property on the site map that includes the 116 proposed new parking spaces (designated in green)
owned by Benderson Development to be contiguous. Mr. Fineberg stated that he does consider the property to be contiguous to the retail plaza.
Mr. Murray and Mr. Fineberg discussed the parking proposed on the northeast side of Lowe’s and customer use of the plaza. It was established that Mr. Fineberg is not an expert on liability insurance and was not qualified to comment on liability situations. However, Mr. Fineberg told the members that he feels this is not a new situation in a retail shopping plaza and that it is appropriate. Mr. Murray asked the applicant to confirm that as part of this project, it is being asked that a patron park at the Tops area and walk to Lowe’s, if they chose to. Mr. Fineberg stated that the intention is to meet the technical definition of “parking” under the code. Mr. Fineberg stated that this area is designated as an employee parking area.
Mr. Fineberg also perceives the parking at the plaza as “all in common”. There is no designated parking for any particular retail operation located within the plaza. The outside restaurant seating was discussed for Watson’s. Mr. Fineberg stated that he would be willing to add 3 additional parking spaces to the proposed plan. Mr. Scheid discussed the parking and customer use of the plaza with the members. Mr. Murray asked who would be encouraged to park at the new proposed parking area beside Lowe’s and Mr. Fineberg stated that the employees would be.
Chairman Fabinsky established that the site plan, as presented for the development of the plaza, is complete. The details of a future parcel east of the Plaza and Lowe’s can be presented to the Planning Board at a future date. It was noted that this parcel would be a restaurant. Mr. Fineberg stated that he is willing to send a letter confirming that the development of the plaza is final, as shown on the presented plan.
Mr. Murray noted that the parking would have to be expanded to accommodate a future planned restaurant. Mr. Fineberg stated that Benderson Development owns land adjacent to this. It was further confirmed that patrons of the future restaurant would use the Lowe’s property to access the restaurant. There is no intention to have another curb cut other than the one planned for the restaurant.
Mr. McNamara noted that he habitually crosses other people’s property while working downtown and that he does not feel that it is unusual to cross through parking lots in inclement weather to reach a destination. What Benderson Development is proposing is not atypical of normal traversing to and from a work place.
Mrs. Biryla noted that she has worked very hard with regards to the Taffy’s restaurant during the development of the plaza. She does not feel that the proposed Wyoming County Bank project will have any ill effect on Taffy’s.
Mrs. Biryla further feels that the bank is an attractive and viable project and she does not have a problem with the proposed parking. She requests that a motion include a stipulation that Benderson Development will agree to have no further development, other than the future out parcel within this plaza.
Chairman Fabinsky stated that he wants to be assured that a limit can be set on the plaza development along Orchard Park Road and Southwestern Boulevard as far east as Lowe’s. He sees the bank as stabilizing to business in that area. Chairman Fabinsky asked the president of Wyoming Bank how the site was chosen. The Wyoming Bank president established that the basis of selection in choosing this location was the research performed by an outside consulting firm. The research performed determined that this is the best choice possible for the bank.
Mr. Bernard stated that the plans show a double traffic route, consisting of three lanes in width, on the west side of the bank building with the drive-through isle traveling north and south. Mr. Bernard stated his concern is that the south traffic would flow into the northbound traffic coming out of the parking area. He had discussed this concern with Town Engineer Wayne Bieler and it was suggested that the island be moved to restrict this. Mr. Bernard reviewed the map with Mr. Scheid and indicated how the island could be moved. Mr. Scheid stated he did not believe that it would be a problem to extend the island.
Mr. Bernard briefly discussed lighting for the plaza and noted that the recently submitted plans will need to be reviewed by the members. Mr. Mistretta confirmed that engineering approval exists for the building, however, the site plans still need to be reviewed.
The members further discussed with Mr. Fineberg how the development of the plaza evolved, involving the bank. Mr. McGuire expressed his thoughts regarding the development and noted that “things just keep popping up”.
Mr. Murray discussed the plan submitted on 9/9/03, confirming the curb cut shown as being for the Lowe’s store. It was affirmed that there would be no further curb cuts. Mr. Murray told Mr. Fineberg that the 116 parking spaces were a reality to the plaza.
Mrs. Biryla noted that if additional parking is needed the Board could address this at the time of the request.
Mr. Fineberg discussed Mr. Murray’s additional concerns regarding the parking and stated that he feels the plan presented is the best option for the parking situation and that from a practical standpoint this makes the most sense. Mr. Murray asked if Mr. Fineberg would agree that the proposed plans for the bank could not have placed the parking any further away from
the bank than they had designed. Mr. Fineburg stated that the distance is irrelevant. What is relevant is its distance from the overall plaza. Parking
spaces do not have to be calculated as to how many will be used for the bank, rather they are calculated for the overall plaza. To that extent this is relevant.
A MOTION was made by Mrs. Biryla, seconded by Chairman Fabinsky to RECOMMEND that the Town Board authorize a Building Permit for 13,600 square foot bank building and APPROVE the site plan received 9/9/03 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Long EAF Parts 1, 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 15% green space.
3. The site lighting plan has not been reviewed or approved, having been just received by the members. However, light Fixtures shall have flat lens and the soffit lighting is to be limited to 27, twin thirteens.
4. No outside storage or display is permitted.
5. The issuing of a building permit is contingent upon this project receiving Town Engineering Approval.
6. Based on a letter received, dated 7/30/03, from Benderson Development and an oral representation made by Mr. Fineberg on 9/10/03, no further development is to occur in the plaza after the building of the Wyoming County Bank, other than the development of the out parcel east of Lowe’s, which the applicant will have to seek Planning Board approval for. There are to be no additional out parcels in the plaza, no street side development and/or construction along Orchard Park Road or Southwestern Boulevard adjacent to the Lowe’s property line.
7. A detail of the expansion of the parking plan between Top’s and Lowe’s and to the north of Lowe’s is to be submitted to the Town Engineering Department and the Planning Board for review and approval of lighting and drainage issues. This does not have to occur prior to the issuance of the bank building permit, but shall be submitted within six months for review and approval of the lighting and drainage associated with the proposed additional parking.
8. The southern island will be extended further to the west to better define the traffic as discussed and agreed to.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Murray referred to the correspondence from Benderson Development, dated July 30, 2003 to the Planning Coordinator where it is noted that no plans for further development exist after the addition of the proposed Wyoming County Bank. Mr. Murray asked for clarification of this letter from Mr. Fineberg, the author of the letter. Mr. Fineberg read the letter to the Board and discussed the intent of the letter with the members.
Mr. Murray asked if there was Engineering approval for the project. It was confirmed with Mr. Mistretta that the building has received engineering approval.
Mr. Bernard stated that the motion includes a stipulation requesting a detailed plan be submitted for approval showing the paving, drainage and lighting for the proposed additional parking areas.
Chairman Fabinsky further discussed his desire to limit the construction along the street on Southwestern Boulevard.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING FOUR (4) IN FAVOR AND TWO (2) AGAINST, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
MC GUIRE NAY
MURRAY NAY
MC NAMARA AYE
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Discussion with developer of the proposed Pleasant Acres West subdivision.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Elliott Lasky, Developer
Mr. Rob Pidanick, Pratt & Huth
Mr. Pidanick reviewed the trail that had been designed and agreed to by Mr. Lasky. This trail is designed to connect to a town owned park within the Pleasant Acres West Subdivision. Mr. Lasky presented and explained an alternative proposal he had developed in an effort to appease residents of his development
that will be affected by the planned trail. The Board members discussed the proposal and determined that Mr. Lasky should contact the Trails Committee members and the Town Engineer to develop a creative solution to the problems discussed.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
DATED: 9/18/03 Respectfully Submitted,
REVIEWED: 9/22/03 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
Harold T. Fabinsky
Planning Board Chairman