Minutes of the April 14, 2004 meeting of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, S4295 South Buffalo Street, Erie County
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lorraine Biryla, Chairman
John Bernard
Paul Bodden
Harold Fabinsky
William McNamara
Philip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
EXCUSED: Michael McGuire
OTHERS PRESENT: Andrew Geist, Supervising Building Inspector
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Sarah desJardins, Planning Coordinator
Thomas Ostrander, 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 March 10, 2004 Planning Board meetings was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Bernard noted the following corrections to the minutes; page nine (9), paragraph two, second sentence, should read, “to the proposed recreation area”, not “conservation” area. Paragraph three change the word “lake” to “pond”. On page ten, paragraph two, it is noted that there will be 4 bays. Mr. Bernard would like this number to be verified. On 4/16/04 the secretary verified that there will be 4 car wash bays and 5 service bays. Page ten, paragraph three, the proposal is for 1,300 parking spaces, not “1,3000”.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to accept the minutes of the March 10, 2004 meeting as corrected.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Chairman welcomed the University at Buffalo students studying Urban Planning who were attending the meeting.
1. 7:30 P.M. Public Hearing, P.B. Sub. File #6-94, Birdsong Subdivision, Part 3A, Zoned R-1. Requesting Final Approval of a 77-lot subdivision on 73.8 acres of vacant land. Preliminary Approval granted by the Planning Board on 7/9/03.
The Chairman called the Public Hearing to order. The Affidavit of Publication and Posting, published April 2, 2004 was presented and filed with the Board by the Planning Board secretary.
IN FAVOR:
Robert Pidanick, Greenman-Pedersen
4950 Genesee Street
Buffalo, New York 14225
Mr. Pidanick stated that he is in favor of the project.
Mr. Dominick Piestrak, Developer
110 Coriander Circle
East Amherst, NY 14051
Mr. Piestrak spoke in favor of the project
Mr. Nick Piestrak
110 Coriander Circle
East Amherst, NY 14051
Mr. Piestrak spoke in favor of the project.
OPPOSED: No one
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to close the Public Hearing.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Chairman explained to the petitioners that the Board could not move forward with this project until the Engineering Department has completed a review of the petitioner’s revised plans.
2. P.B. Sub. File #40-94, proposed Pleasant Acres West Subdivision, Vacant land, north side of New Taylor Road, Zoned R-3. Requesting that the Planning Board schedule a Public Hearing for Preliminary Approval of a 98-lot subdivision. Revised Pre-Application Findings made on 10/9/96.
APPEARANCE: Robert Pidanick, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
The Chairman told Mr. Pidanick that the Board would like a revised plan that is in compliance with the Town of Orchard Park’s most recent cul-de-sac requirements.
Mr. Pidanick told the members that the proposed plans were filed prior to the change in regulations regarding cul-de-sacs and that he was appearing before the Board to request a public hearing be set for preliminary plat plan approval.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that in his opinion the purpose of having a public hearing would be for the public to have the opportunity to comment. If the plans that exist are now inconsistent with the Town of Orchard Park ordinance, he wonders how the public can examine these plans and give sensible comments.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to have the Chairman set a public hearing when she deems appropriate.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. P.B. File #13-04, Village Fireplace and Stove, 3726 North Buffalo Road, Zoned B-3. Requesting Planning Board approval of outdoor display from through September 30, 2004.
APPEARANCE: Ray Perryman, petitioner
Chairman Biryla established that the display would be located in the same location as it had been in the previous year.
Mr. Fabinsky discussed locating the outdoor display 25’ feet back from the R.O.W. with Mr. Perryman, noting that he had observed other approved outdoor displays further down the street were following this practice. Mr. Perryman stated that he, too, would do so.
Mr. Bernard verified with Mr. Perryman that he would place the display square with the front of the Legion Post metal building next door and that two nameplate signs would be utilized.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Murray to GRANT outside display from 4/15/04 to 9/30/04 based on the site plan received on 1/11/04 and based on the following stipulations:
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
4. P.B. File #15-04, Orchard Park Antique Mall, 3025 Orchard Park Road, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board approval of outside display.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Donald Frank, petitioner
Mrs. Melody Helfrich, Farmer’s Market
Mr. Chad Helfrich, Farmer’s Market
Mr. Snyder, Western NY Historical Society/Farmer’s Market
Mr. Murray told the Chairman that he would be abstaining from voting in this case.
The Chairman reviewed the location of the proposed tent with the petitioner and discussed the concerns members had regarding its placement. Concerns include the “Farmer’s Market” event that would take place at this site and the fact that the Board feels the tent should be located back further from the road. Mr. Don Frank told the members that it would be no problem to adjust the tent location to eliminate these concerns.
Mr. Bodden verified that the tent would be erected two weekends per month. Mr. Don Frank explained to the members that the tent would be set up on Thursday evening and removed on the next Monday.
Mr. Fabinsky established that the tent will be located on the north side of the parking lot, along Michael Road and not at the corner of Orchard Park and Michael Roads. It was further agreed to have the tent set back at least 75’ from the road.
Mr. Bodden made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to GRANT outside display from May 1, 2004 to October 30, 2004 based on the site plan received on 4/7/04 and based on the following conditions and stipulations:
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY ABSTAINED
THE MOTION BEING FIVE (5) AYES AND ONE (1) ABSTENTION, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
5. P.B. File #5-04, Dan DeMarco, 4270 Abbott Road, Zoned B-2. Requesting a Change in Use from residential to commercial in order to install a beauty shop. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 2/4/04.
APPEARANCE: Connie Lydon, Lydon Landscape & Design
Nece Bellomo, applicant
Mrs. Lydon explained the landscape plan to the members, noting that the Conservation Board members have approved the landscape plan. The Chairman verified that the entire building will be used for the hair salon or related business.
Mr. Bernard verified that there would be no change in the lighting.
Mr. Murray verified that the building would be ADA compliant.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to recommend that the Town Board APPROVE a Change in Use from residential to a Beauty Salon business based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Short EAF, Parts One and Two, and a negative declaration is recommended.
2. The recommendations of the Conservation Board shall be implemented.
3. The site lighting is to be limited to the existing poles.
4. There is to be no outside storage or display.
5. Any dumpster is to be screened.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
6. P.B. Sub. File #11-04, Haskell One-Lot Subdivision, 1.22 acres of vacant land, north side of Ellicott Road, across from Benning Road, Zoned R-1. Requesting Pre-Application Findings Review of a one-lot subdivision.
APPEARANCE: Greg Haskell, petitioner
Mr. Haskell explained to the members the history of the division of the property. He told the members that he built his home at this location and that he desires to split off one remaining parcel. Mr. Haskell explained that the remaining 45.72 acres will be placed in a Conservation Easement.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Biryla, that the following Preapplication Findings be made based on the submitted site plan received 4/1/04 and the applicant has detailed:
· The total acreage is 1.22
· The desired zoning classification is R-1.
· The number of possible stages of completion is 1.
· The applicant’s position with respect to title is owner.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to AUTHORIZE the Chairman to set a Public Hearing when appropriate.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
7. P.B. Sub. File #6-04, proposed Armor Ridge Estates subdivision on vacant land, northwest corner of Armor Duells Road and Duerr Road (part of the Printy estate), Zoned R-2. Requesting Pre-Application Findings Review of a 12-lot subdivision.
APPEARANCE: Andrew Romanowski, Alliance Homes
Mr. Romanowski told the members that his proposed plan is in compliance with the recently changed cul-de-sac requirements. He further verified that a mulch-based trail is proposed with the entrance to be located on Armor Duells Road. He explained that the exit tentatively is designed to come out onto Duerr Road. Mr. Romanowski also stated that the 14-acre site would have approximately ½ acre that will need to be cleared. He told the members that there would be no disturbance to the flood plain as the lots are not located within that area. The Conservation Board has agreed to accept land in lieu of fees. Mr. Romanowski noted that approximately four and 3/4 acres will be donated to the Town of Orchard Park. The donated land consists of two separate sections of the parcel.
Mr. Bernard established that the size of the detention area is presently unknown as the Engineering Department is still reviewing the proposed plans. This area is shown to be part of the land donation.
Mr. Bodden expressed concerns regarding buffering the future cul-de-sac property owners from the 30’ access to the recreational land. He stated
that he hopes the petitioner will inform potential buyers of the intended use of this area. Mr. Romanowski stated that he would use landscaping as a
buffer. Mr. Bodden also established that the proposed entrance to said subdivision is located at the top of a hill. Mr. Romanowski stated that all engineering issues regarding this concern have been resolved.
Mr. Bernard discussed the stub street with Mr. Romanowski noting that it is designed at a right angle on the proposed plans. He told Mr. Romanowski that if a road were ever desired there, it would have to be implemented as a type “T” design. Mr. Bernard also discussed the fact that the property is located in an Agricultural District. Mrs. desJardins told the members and the petitioner that she did not believe that this is a problem and that she would supply the petitioner with paperwork to address this issue.
Mr. Bernard stated that the submitted SEQR information should contain a review based on the fact that it is in the Agricultural District. In addition, the traffic and site distance along Armor Duells should be reviewed and he would like to have verification that the proposed plans are acceptable with the Town Engineering Department.
Mr. Bernard noted that he did not feel the drainage area should be a part of the recreation land. It was established that the portion of land being donated that contained the drainage area was a “bonus space” (¾ of an acre), and that the recreation land requirement has been met with another portion (4 acres) that would be deeded to the Town. Mr. Bernard stated that he does not believe that the Planning Board has been advised by any other committee, such as the Recreation Commission, in regards to a preference of land vs. fees. He further noted that he would be voting “nay” as he feels given the size of the parcel, it would have been more appropriate and beneficial to the Town of Orchard Park to require fees.
The Chairman stated that the Town of Orchard Park desires the land donation to implement the trail system in town. However, Mr. Bernard stated that this “little parcel” would have to be maintained by the town. He further noted that there is no full comprehensive plan that exists for trail determination and maintenance that would be required.
Mr. Bodden stated that he is the liaison to the Trails Committee and that he could speak on their behalf. He stated that the Trails Committee favors the land donation, as the trail being proposed at this site would almost connect to another trail located across from this (located within a subdivision on Murphy and Armor Duells Roads).
Mr. Fabinsky noted that there are various elements of the Town working together and that he supports the Conservation Board’s recommendation to accept the donation of recreation land.
Mr. Murray asked the petitioner if he had an opinion as to where people wanting to access the trail would park their vehicles. It was Mr. Romanowski’s opinion that the 30’ access road might be used for public parking. Mr. Murray discussed this aspect further and questioned if the unknown amount of vehicles that may come to use the trail might park on the shoulder of the highway or on the access road or somewhere within where the access road leads. He questioned if this is this what the developer envisioned for the future owners of the nearby lots.
Mr. Bodden stated that there is no vehicle parking on a trail. He further explained that the trail is being proposed for the immediate residents of the subdivision and that they would be parking in their own driveways. He does not feel that people will drive to the trail and use it to travel from Duerr Road to Armor Duells Road.
Mr. Murray stated that he believes that a publicly owned municipal Town of Orchard Park recreation area will be an invitation for the people of Orchard Park, such as bird watchers, to come to the trail. He does not believe that people from another part of town will walk to the trail and he would like to know the theoretical answer as to where people would park their vehicles if they desire to participate in using the trail.
The Chairman stated that the 30’ access road could be used. Mr. Murray noted that the future owners of lots 8 & 9 might be affected by the use of the access road as a designated parking area.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to make the following Pre-application Findings based on the submitted site plan received 4/14/04 and the applicant has detailed:
· The total acreage is +/- 15.
· The desired zoning classification is R-2.
· The number of possible stages of completion is 1.
· The applicant’s position with respect to title is contract to purchase.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Bernard noted that he would be voting nay. He referenced Section 25-4 of the Town Code, and requested that the Highway Superintendent and Recreation Commission supply their input regarding this project.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD NAY
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY NAY
THE MOTION BEING FOUR (4) AYES AND TWO (2) NAYS, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
Mr. McNamara stated that he would like the Trails Committee to attend a Planning Board work session. He feels that Mr. Murray made an excellent point regarding there being no provision for parking outside the immediate area of a trail.
The Chairman stated that Trails Chairman Anne Bergantz would be contacted by Mr. Bodden to attend the next Planning Board work session at 6:30 p.m.
8. P.B. File #8-04, Jim Ball Pontiac, Vacant land, northwest corner of Southwestern Boulevard and Mid-County Drive, Zoned B-2, I-1 and R-4. Requesting rezoning from I-1 and R-4 to B-2 in order to construct an auto center facility consisting of a 16,000 sq. ft. car wash, service and convenience store and a 32,000 sq. ft. new car dealership with interior car
showroom. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 3/3/04. Tabled by the Planning Board on 3/10/04.
APPEARANCE: Marc Mussachio, architect
Steve Castillone, General Manager, Jim Ball
The Chairman established that the applicants could not disclose the type of car franchise that was desired to be developed at this location. The members discussed the large amount of parking that is being proposed with the applicants. It was learned that Mr. Ball’s vehicle inventory is being stored in the Orchard Park area and that the plan being proposed would eliminate the storage taking place at the BAC and Moog parking lots.
Mr. Fabinsky noted that at its previous meeting, the Planning Board was told that Jim Ball is looking to move some of the inventory stored in Orchard Park to another location outside of the Town. Mr. Castillone replied that this is true and that they are attempting to move the cars in order to appease the Town. Mr. Fabinsky stated that he is concerned that this large project could turn Orchard Park into the “Orchard Park Parking Lot” as it is being proposed at a location that has a very visible intersection. The applicant told the Board that potentially the entire space could be paved and parked on, under the present zoning. Attorney Michael Wolf verified that only a portion of the site is located in the I-1 Zoning district. Mr. Bernard informed the applicants that the Town Board would have to grant its approval for the commercial parking lot.
Mr. Bodden verified that the revised plan submitted indicates that the proposal is for 826 parking spaces. Mr. Castillone briefly explained to the members why that number of parking spaces is being proposed. He told the members that inventory requirements must be maintained for situations involving limited factory production and potential future sales.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that the Board must decide if the rezoning request is in the best interest of the Town of Orchard Park. He further stated that the visual impact of the parking must be taken into consideration with regards to the appearance of the Town.
The Chairman told the applicants that the Town of Orchard Park does not have a large amount of industrially zoned land available and that some members feel the Town would be losing a large portion of land in the I-1 District to this project. She verified with the applicants that they would be using all of the industrial zoned land at the proposed site. The applicants discussed the project with regards to the Board’s rezoning concerns.
Mr. McNamara told the applicants that the type of industrial businesses that exist in Orchard Park are not like Bethlehem Steel, but rather more
like the businesses located within the Quaker Centre and those located on Mid County Drive. The applicants discussed the fact that car franchises exist in the area, but Mr. Fabinsky concluded that there had to be a point of one zoning district ending and another beginning.
Mr. Murray asked attorney Michael Wolf to clarify what is allowed in this zoning district with regards to parking. Mr. Wolf stated that permission from the Town Board is required for a commercial parking lot. Mr. Murray feels that approaching the Town to rezone this property for another purpose is a classic case of trying to trade industrial and residential area for commercial. He further stated that the applicant should demonstrate a hardship to the Planning Board, as he questions if there is a hardship, or if this is just a business plan the applicants are proposing. Mr. Murray further stated that a Town Master Plan exists that indicates how this area is intended to be zoned. Mr. Castillone responded that it is a little bit of both a hardship and a business plan. Mr. Mussachio told the members that what they are proposing is consistent with what is developing along Route 20.
Mrs. Biryla asked the applicants to explain an area of the site plan located in the R-4 area. The applicants stated that the development of future residential homes is planned for that area.
Mr. Bernard noted that a paper road is shown on the plans. He told the applicants that the road could not come in to the parking area. Mr. Castillone noted that a 50’ buffer would be installed between the residential areas and the proposed project. Mr. Bernard verified that there are no other exits onto the residential streets. He also asked how building “B” would be used. Mr. Castillone explained that vehicles would enter the service area and then exit out. Mr. Bernard asked for verification regarding the existence of service bays. Mr. Castillone noted that initially the project is to be built as a small car dealership. The plan being presented is showing the future intent. If they develop and grow, five bays will be built with collision and service areas. Mr. Bernard confirmed that the discrepancy is that there were to be no bays, based on the original plan. Ultimately the goal is to work towards having five bays. It was further confirmed that the proposed car wash facility would operate on a 24-hour basis.
Mr. Bernard stated that he would like to have the submitted SEQR information address the impact on the current industrial zoning being changed for commercial usage, buffers, traffic, lighting (this is shown on the plan as being seven times what Orchard Park’s ordinance requires) and the land-locked portions (Washington Street).
Mrs. Biryla discussed the convenience store plans and verified that it would not be a large retail operation.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. McNamara, to recommend that the Town Board DENY the request for the rezoning at this time for the following reasons:
1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate any benefit of such rezoning to the Town of Orchard Park, especially in terms of the impact on the I-1 Zoning.
2. The applicant has failed to justify the aesthetic impact of locating a 900 to 1,300 parking space lot on a high visibility corner.
3. The applicant has failed to present a consistent picture of what the building and spaces on the proposed site will be used for.
4. The proposed development will have a negative impact on the nearby residents due to higher lighting levels.
5. The proposed change will yield lower tax revenue, due to parking lot versus taxable structures.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN ABSTAINED
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION BEING FIVE (5) AYES AND ONE (1) ABSTENTION, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
OTHER BUSINESS:
The Chairman reviewed the amendments to the subdivision regulations that Attorney Michael Wolf proposed be made for Sections 121-9, 121-10 and 121-17 of the town code. The present town code allows that action must be taken within 45 days. The Board discussed these recommendations and agreed to change the time period to be “within sixty-two days (62)”. The Chairman made a resolution to accept the changes as prepared by Mr. Wolf and the members unanimously voted in favor of the resolution.
The members discussed a correspondence concerning the dangerous situation that presently exists at Tim Horton’s. The Planning Board Secretary will review past minutes to ascertain if a railing had ever been mentioned to be installed for safety.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
DATED: 4/22/04 Respectfully, Submitted,
REVIEWED: 4/26/04 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
Lorraine Biryla
Planning Board Chairman