Minutes of the February 11, 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
Michael McGuire
William McNamara
Phillip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT: David Holland, Assistant Building Inspector
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Sarah desJardins, Planning Coordinator
Wayne Bieler, Town Engineer
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 January 14, 2004 and February 4, 2004 Planning Board meetings was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
A motion was made by Mr. Bodden, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to accept the minutes of the January 14, 2004 and February 4, 2004 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. P.B. File #28-01, Joe DeMarco, 2799 Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board approval of a revised site plan. Original site plan approved on 3/13/02.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Tim Arlington, Apex Consulting
Mrs. Joseph DeMarco
The Chairman asked Mr. Arlington to address why the building had been built 15 ft. north and 20 ft. east of what had been indicated on the approved site plan. Mr. Arlington explained it had become apparent to Mr. DeMarco that the greater tenant need was to locate the majority of the parking at the front of the building. Therefore, the building location was adjusted to accommodate this need.
The Chairman asked Mr. Arlington if his client knew that he is required to appear before the Planning Board when revisions are desired to plans that have been approved by the Board. Mr. Arlington described his conversation (in October 2002) with Mr. DeMarco regarding this fact. He told the members that Mr. DeMarco chose to proceed with the revised plan as he feared losing potential tenants based on the time frame involving the review process and the fall building season. Mr. Arlington further stated that he told Mr. DeMarco that it would be important to retain the parking requirements, utilities, drainage requirements, etc… He told the members that the landscaping, based on the presented revised plan, was recently addressed and approved by the Conservation Board.
The Chairman noted that the applicant is infringing on the 5’ of green space required between the pavement and the property line at the rear of the building. She stated that two (2) choices exist for the applicant; (1) some of the pavement could be removed (sawcut), however this may compromise the parking spaces that exist at the rear; (2) the applicant could go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. The Chairman confirmed with Junior Engineer Mr. Mistretta that parallel parking might be possible at the rear location. Mrs. DeMarco stated that she would advise the Planning Board of her decision at a later time.
The Chairman noted that there was to have been a “one-way” traffic flow at the back of the building along the east lot line and that this had been established for emergency vehicle use. Presently, vehicles can only enter the back and then back out. Mr. Arlington stated if the Board felt that the “one-way” traffic flow was necessary this would be reinstated.
Mr. Fabinsky expressed his feelings regarding the applicant’s “casual” view of the Town code as being a great concern to him. He further stated that he feels that Mr. DeMarco feels comfortable not conforming to the code if the weather is not right or if the tenants are different than he thought. He is concerned that this “casual” behavior will keep on happening.
Mrs. DeMarco told the members that she and her husband do not take the Town of Orchard Park code casually and that they are addressing all issues that have been brought to their attention.
Mr. Bodden discussed the Town of Orchard Park building and surveying procedures with Mrs. DeMarco and he had the Assistant Building Inspector confirm that what was discussed was correct. Mr. Bodden stated he wanted to be sure that Mrs. DeMarco was aware and understood what is expected. Mrs. DeMarco stated that she did understand.
Mr. McGuire discussed the lighting plan, noting that upon inspection of the property he found that what was approved was not installed. Mr. Bernard and Mr. McGuire discussed what the differences were and Mr. Arlington stated that he would address them. Submittals will be made to the Planning Board regarding the poles, fixture cuts and photometrics. The rear wall packs will need to have the bulb placed up inside the shield, as there is extensive washing to the adjacent property. Mr. McGuire told Mr. Arlington that the photometrics should indicate “zero” lighting leaving the property. He further told him that all wall packs around the building are presently at an 80-degree angle, which makes them act as flood lights. He stated that the lenses need to be positioned at a horizontal to correct this. He also told Mr. Arlington that he had found, while inspecting the site, that it is not possible to turn around and exit the back of the building with the way the cars are parked there, other than to directly back out.
Mr. Bernard strongly recommends that the plan show where the zoning setback is located, as there may be other places to locate the parking spaces. The applicant is to verify that the number of parking spaces is in compliance with the Town of Orchard Park code.
Mr. Murray confirmed that the building is ADA compliant. Mrs. DeMarco stated that there are four tenants and each has one handicapped space located at the front of the building. The parking space distance to the door is the closest that can be made possible, which is approximately 28 ft.
The Chairman told Mrs. DeMarco that the Board would await her decision. She further told Mrs. DeMarco that if she did choose to
apply for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, the members of that Board would be made aware that this was a self-created hardship.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard to TABLE this case.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. P.B. Sub. File #24-03, proposed Baker Highlands Subdivision, Vacant land, east side of Baker Road, north of Milestrip Road, Zoned R-2. Planning Board to determine whether to accept recreation land or fees in lieu of recreation land for this subdivision.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Michael Merritt, William Schutt & Associates
The Chairman stated that the Board members have determined that it is preferred to acquire land, rather than fees.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, that based on the recommendation of the Town of Orchard Park Trails Task Force, the Recreation Commission, Conservation Board, Town Board and the lack of existing recreation land in the general area, per Section 25-4 of the Town Code recreation area shall be provided. The recreation area shall be located on the portion adjacent and within the proposed lot areas for a future neighborhood playground. The petitioner shall provide the Planning Board with a revised pre-application sketch plan showing alternate views to meet the recreation needs.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Merritt asked for further clarification regarding the location of the recreation land. Mr. Bernard noted that the future neighborhood playground should be in an area that should not be in a far corner away from all of the lots. The specific location is not being designated at this time. The members would like the applicant to submit several proposals. Mr. Merritt confirmed that the members are looking for a portion of the land area, located within the subdivision, to be used as a playground (“tot lot”). Mr. Merritt referenced a correspondence that he had sent the members dated 2/11/04. The Chairman noted that they were in receipt of the correspondence but had not had time to review it. Mr. Merritt briefly discussed what he had expressed in this correspondence with the members. Town Engineer Wayne Bieler told Mr. Merritt that the Engineering Department is researching the proposed “tear drop” cul-de-sac design. The Chairman concluded that they would review submissions from Mr. Merritt at the next work session.
3. P.B. File #3-04, CRS Property Services, Co., LLC, 13.91 acres of vacant land, north side of Milestrip Road, east of Provincetown Lane, Zoned R-3. Requesting rezoning from R-3 to SR in order to construct an affordable
APPEARANCE: Mr. Peter Sorgi, Renaldo & Palumbo
Sarah Herman, Renaldo & Palumbo
Skip Cerio, applicant
Mr. Sorgi presented plans for two proposed projects and explained to the members that the applicant desires to construct an affordable senior housing community consisting of 119 units and a five-lot subdivision with single-family homes on a 31-acre parcel. This parcel is located on the north side of Milestrip Road, across from Moreland Drive and is zoned R-2, R-3 and B-2. The applicant is requesting that the R-3 zoning be changed to SR in order to construct the senior residential housing project. Mr. Sorgi also told the members that the applicant is seeking ways to preserve the land area that will not be built upon, i.e.… conservation easement, deed restrictions.
Mr. Sorgi told the members that a Federal program mandates the criteria for the proposed senior housing project. Individuals must be fifty-five years of age or older with an income that is at, or
below, the median income for the area by sixty-percent. Mr. Sorgi told the members that this is not an assisted living community and that the applicant has developed two similar projects located in the Town of Amherst.
Mr. Fabinsky noted that other projects have been presented for senior residential living (People, Inc.) in the Town of Orchard Park. He questioned if the demand for this type of residence would become limited and asked the applicant if a market study had been performed that considered the other similar existing projects and those in the pipeline. Mr. Cerio discussed this aspect with Mr. Fabinsky noting that the proposed project is targeted towards an income level that is not the same as what is required by People, Inc. The discussion concluded with Mr. Fabinsky restating that he wants to be sure that the demand will be there for this type of project.
Mr. Bodden established that there is no set criteria for a resident if he or she becomes incapable of living at the community. He also established that Mr. Cerio has no use for the undeveloped area and that he will accommodate whatever the Town of Orchard Park would like to do with this land. He further stated that his funding would not allow him to build a trail, however, he would make a donation towards its construction.
Mr. Fabinsky explained to Mr. Cerio that People, Inc. had provided geographic community data to the Board. Mr. Cerio told the members that he would be happy to provide any information that the laws allow him to provide.
Mr. Bernard discussed with the applicant items that the Board would be requiring for review in the SEQR process and the site plan review. He established that access to the five-lot subdivision would be through a road that the applicant would build that would be partially public, and off of Milestrip Road.
Mr. Murray established that the project would be registered on the Town of Orchard Park tax rolls. He further requested the applicant to provide information on the Federal title program (Section 42 of the IRS code) and their funding source. Mr. Sorgi stated that he would provide this information. Mr. Murray explained that he would like to know the cumulative impact of this project, in relation to other projects (present and in the pipeline) in Orchard Park and the need for this project. Mr. Murray discussed “needs” and “unmet needs” with the applicant. Mr. Sorgi noted that he would contact People, Inc. to discuss the information that they had been able to provide to the Board.
Mr. Bernard verified that the total parcel consists of 31 acres and that 12 acres of this property are involved in the request for the rezoning to SR. He reviewed the site plan with the applicant and confirmed that sixty percent of the property would be left untouched.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to RECOMMEND to the Town Board initiate a coordinated review of this Unlisted SEQR action to rezone a portion of this property from R-3 to SR with the SEQR Part Three to consider the following:
10. The impacts on ravines and waterways.
11. The wildlife.
12. Neighborhood character.
13. The demand for this type of housing.
14. The accumulative impact with other projects currently in/or through the pipeline.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Proposed subdivision, northwest corner of Armor-Duells Road and Duerr Road.
Mr. Michael Barowiak, Nussbaumer & Clarke, Inc.
Mr. Andrew Romanowski, applicant
Plans were presented for a proposed 12-lot subdivision. The members offered their suggestions to the applicant. The proposed cul-de-sac design was discussed and it was noted that the Highway Superintendent does not favor cul-de-sacs. The members expressed their concerns regarding the area adjacent to this property and how it could become developed with one cul-de-sac after another. The Chairman stated that the members would await the Highway Superintendent’s input.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
DATED: 2/17/04 Respectfully, Submitted,
REVIEWED: 2/17/04 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
Lorraine Biryla
Planning Board Chairman