Minutes of the January 14, 2004 meeting of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, S4295 South Buffalo Street, Erie County
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lorraine Biryla, Chairman
Paul Bodden
Harold Fabinsky
Michael McGuire
William McNamara
Phillip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
EXCUSED: John Bernard
OTHERS PRESENT: Andrew Geist, 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 December 10, 2003 and December 22, 2003 Planning Board meetings was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
A motion was made by Mr. Bodden, seconded by Mr. McGuire, to accept the minutes of the December 10, 2003 and December 22, 2003 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Chairman thanked Mr. Fabinsky for his years of service and for allowing such a smooth transition for her.
1. 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. Planning Board to issue the Final Written Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Rob Pidanick, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Mr. Andrew Leja, Hiscock & Barclay
Mr. Ken Liftin and Mr. Larry Zamojski,
Acres International representatives
The Board members, representatives from Acres International and Mr. Leja discussed the scoping document and agreed to allow a continuance. It was agreed that additional time would be given to the petitioner to review the final scoping document. It was determined that a Special Meeting will be held on February 4, 2004, preceding the Planning Board Work Session, at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Biryla made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to TABLE this case.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Chairman stated that there will be a special meeting scheduled for February 4, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
2. P.B. Sub. File #38-98, Eagle Heights Subdivision, Part 8, Vacant land, south of Red Brick Road and Hearthstone Terrace, Zoned R-1. Requesting Final Approval of a 78-lot subdivision. Preliminary Approval was granted by the Planning Board on 7/9/03. Public Hearing for Final Approval held on 12/10/2003. Tabled by the Planning Board on 12/10/2003.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Rob Pidanick, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Mr. Sean Hopkins, Renaldo & Palumbo
Chairman Biryla noted that a January 14, 2004 correspondence had been received from the petitioner confirming that all previous agreements made regarding the proposed project would be complied with. Mr. Hopkins provided the members with additional
copies of this letter and with a copy of a “Declaration of Restrictions”. Deed restrictions, as well as representations that had been made at previous meetings and the Findings Statement, were incorporated into this document. The Chairman reviewed and verified the following with Mr. Hopkins: The petitioner is to convey parkland to the Town of Orchard Park in a timely manner, recommendations contained in the forrester’s report prepared by Mr. Vincent Chebetar shall be implemented and the deed restrictions already in force in the existing phases of Eagle Heights will be implemented in this phase. Chairman Biryla told the petitioner that the Board does not want to be involved with any agreements made between the developer and the current residents of Eagle Heights. Mr. Hopkins asked that the Board consider four (4) additional deed restrictions, as these pertained to findings that the Board had made with respect to limiting clearing in the preservation areas. The Chairman re-asserted that the Board does not want to be involved with any part of the agreement made between the developer and the residents.
Mr. Fabinsky reviewed the deed restrictions with Mr. Hopkins and verified that the proposed restrictions are consistent with that which was required by the Planning Board.
Mr. Hopkins told the members that the preservation area is depicted in “Exhibit B”. It was also established that Engineering approval had been granted for this project on 1/14/04.
Mr. Bodden made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to GRANT Conditional Final Plat Plan Approval to this 78-lot subdivision based on the submitted preliminary plat plan received 12/10/03 with the following conditions:
1. Conditional Preliminary Plat Plan approval was granted on 7/9/03.
2. A findings statement was issued on 5/14/03.
3. Public Hearing and Subdivision Development fees have been paid.
4. Recreation area per Section 25-4 of the Town Code will be deeded to the Town.
5. One (1) Street Tree per the Conversation Board Street Tree Plan shall be provided on each lot per Section 121-66 of the Town Code.
6. Town Engineering Approval has been granted on 1/14/04.
7. All approvals are contingent upon conformity to Conservation Board recommendations as indicated in Conservation Board minutes.
8. All understandings, covenants and agreements between the Town and the petitioner that are part of the written record are incorporated as conditions of approval.
9. The correspondence from Renaldo & Palumbo, Attorneys, 9276 Main Street, Clarence, New York, dated 1/14/04 reads as follows: “Dear Sarah: I am sending you this letter to follow up on our meeting last week as well as our recent telephone conversations. Our client agrees to the following conditions to be imposed on the Planning Board’s approval of the final plat for the above captioned project.
1. Parkland as shown on the subdivision plan will be conveyed to the Town of Orchard Park in a timely manner.
2. The recommendations contained in the Forrester’s Report prepared by Vincent Chebetar will be implemented; and
3. The attached proposed deed restrictions will be recorded at the Erie County Clerk’s Office to limit and regulate the future use of the project site.”
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. P.B. File #1-04, Fischione Construction Co., Inc., Requesting Planning Board approval of a subdivision identification sign for the Hilltowne Subdivision located on the east side of Murphy Road, south of Armor Duells Road.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Patrick Monti
The Chairman verified with Mr. Holland that the proposed sign meets the requirements of the Town Code.
The members discussed the location of the utility lines at that site. It was established that the applicant did not have information regarding the location of the water line available. The Chairman noted that this information is required, as the proposed sign must be placed 5’ from the water line. In addition, the Board told Mr. Monti that they would like him to document the distance the sign will be from all of the utilities.
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to TABLE this case pending receipt of the above information.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. P.B. File #2-04, Advision Sign Manufacturers, 3545 North Buffalo Street, Zoned B-3. Requesting Planning Board approval of two (2) directional signs.
APPEARANCE: Mr. John Ricotta, owner
Mr. Ricotta explained to the members why he feels the proposed directional signs are needed. He told the members that he feels the signs would address the safety concerns he has. The Chairman told Mr. Ricotta that because this is a single driveway, the signs might create more confusion for his customers. The members do not feel that Mr. Ricotta’s customers would see the proposed driveway signs. They suggested that Mr. Ricotta paint directional arrows on the pavement. The Chairman told Mr. Ricotta to return if the situation becomes a problem.
With regards to the proposed signs to be erected on the building, the members did not express any concerns or objections. To aid in the flow of traffic, it was determined that an additional sign is needed. The proposed building signs being requested and their location are as follows: on the south side of the front of the building “additional parking in rear”, on the north side of the front of the building “exit only” and on the north side of the rear of the building “exit only”.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Chairman Biryla, to GRANT approval of three (3) directional signs based on the submitted plans received 12/15/2003 with the following conditions:
1. This is a Type II SEQR action and therefore no determination of significance is required.
2. Three (3) signs are approved and permitted by Section 144-38H.
3. Two (2) building face signs measure 36” wide by 16” high and one (1) measures 30” wide by 20” high.
4. The signs will not be illuminated.
5. The signs will be located per the approved location plan dated 12/15/2003.
6. A permit fee shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-70A(1).
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA 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. Requesting Pre-Application Findings. Review of a 24-lot subdivision.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Michael Merritt, William Schutt & Associates
Mr. Victor Martucci, Marrano/Marc Equity
Mr. Merritt distributed information to the Board members and explained the proposed project. The property consists of 62.3 acres of vacant land located on the east side of Baker Road. Marrano would like to develop 17.5 acres of this site and intends to build all of the proposed 24 homes in one single phase of construction. The starting price for a home located in this subdivision would be approximately $250,000. Public sewer and water are available at this site. Mr. Merritt noted that sublot #24 would be a flag lot and a private retention pond is planned on two sublots, which would have deed restrictions regarding the pond.
Mr. Fabinsky asked if the developer would be willing to agree to leave the approximately forty-five (45) remaining acres perpetually green. Mr. Merritt responded that the intention is to do so. Mr. Merritt verified on the site plan where two (2) major State wetlands exist. He explained that these are also deemed Federal wetlands. Both the State and Army Corps of Engineers have verified the wetland delineation that was performed. Marrano would like to possibly do some mitigation for wetland impacts that may occur on other projects in the meadow areas that exist between the wetlands located at this site. Mr. Merritt stated that this would result in an enhancement to the wetland areas. Preliminary discussions with both the Army Corps of Engineers and the D.E.C. are being held regarding this concept.
The Chairman established that to date no wetland mitigation has taken place on this property. The Chairman told the members that she had a conversation with the Conservation Board Chairman regarding this proposal and was told that the members view this project favorably. They like the concept of having a conservation easement and a 100’ wetland buffer. Mr. Martucci explained that a 100’ buffer is required between the wetland and where one can develop. An area on the site plan where homes are to be built was identified as a potential wetland, but Mr. Merritt explained that this area is considered to be an “isolated” wetland because it is isolated from a stream, and therefore no regulations apply.
The Chairman asked what steps would be taken to assure that basements would be water free. Mr. Merritt stated that a major concern exists with the high ground water. He told the members that four (4) monitoring wells are presently collecting data regarding the elevation of the ground water at different times of the year. Preliminary indications are that with the proper drainage system and proper foundations, basement water will not be a problem. A full report will be filed when the design phase is reached. Mr. Merritt further discussed that this similar condition existed with the Chisholm Trail subdivision. He noted that the site contains an aqua berm that constantly supplies the wetlands with fresh water, creating a good habitat area. He further stated that the site is a terrific wildlife area, with a natural setting with plant life and wildlife habitat. Mr. Merritt also stated that the ground water issue would be addressed with the Empire GEO Services report.
Mr. Fabinsky told Mr. Merritt that he does not want a statement from the school Superintendent that claims that the schools have the ability to accommodate any number of new students. Rather, he wants the school impact information to be more specific as to what the economic impact of additional students might be.
Mr. Fabinsky also feels that a single entrance and exit into this subdivision might create safety issues. He would like other design options to be made available that do not include a cul-de-sac. Mr. Merritt discussed with the members why he does not feel a cul-de-sac would present problems. He further told Mr. Fabinsky that one continuous loop could not be built, as the Town’s ordinance requiring a minimum 250-foot centerline radius could not be met.
The Chairman and Mr. Wolf discussed Mr. Bernard’s suggestion of requiring a DEIS.
Chairman Biryla noted that Mr. Loesch had informed her that the Trails Task Group is reviewing the possibility of trails being built at this site. Mr. Merritt stated that Marrano is willing to discuss this idea. Mr. Merritt noted that the Conservation Board did not make a recommendation to the Planning Board regarding whether it will require land to be deeded to the Town or fees paid. Because of this fact, the Planning Board could not address this aspect of the proposed project. The Planning Coordinator noted that the Planning Board could address this issue at a subsequent meeting, after the Conservation Board makes its determination. The Chairman noted that Jim Loesch had asked that the project not be held up while that Board performed their research.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, that the following Pre-application Findings be made based on the submitted site plan received 11/21/2003:
· The total acreage is 62.3.
· 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 owner.
1. The zoning will remain as is.
2. Access to surrounding properties has been addressed by
Baker Road.
3. Recreation fees and/or deeded land will be provided based on the recommendation of the Town Conservation Board, in accordance with Section 144-70E of the Town Code and shall be paid or provided prior to the Final Plat Plan Public Hearing.
4. Subdivision Development fees, per Section 144-70D of the Town Code, shall be paid prior to the Preliminary Plat Plan Public Hearing.
5. One (1) Street Tree per the Conservation Board's Street Tree Plan shall be provided on each lot per Section 121-77 of the Town Code.
6. The applicant shall complete and submit the Full EAF, Parts 1 and 2 and 3 for this Unlisted SEQR action. The Planning Board will seek Lead Agency status with a coordinated review.
7. Part 3 shall include a traffic/access study and report the specific impact on schools. In addition, archeology results and soil testing will be addressed and made available. The following engineering comments from a memo dated 1/14/04 are also to be addressed:
1. A section of the exception portion of the property is being used as a wetland’s mitigation area for another project in the Town. Will this have any affect on the project? And, as it is apparent that wetlands mitigation will be necessary for this project, where will this mitigation take place?
2. Due to the high water table and soil conditions in this area, soil borings and testing should be required
and performed as soon as possible to identify any potential problems with the proposed development.
3. A homeowners association would be required for the maintenance of the proposed private stormwater
retention pond. Deed restrictions on the properties are not sufficient to insure proper maintenance, which could result in the Town having to incur costs for proper maintenance. The property shown as sub lot #9 should be deeded to the Town with a standard dry detention pond constructed.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. P.B. Sub. File #25-03, proposed Perese 3-lot Subdivision, 24.94 acres of vacant land, south side of Gartman Road, Zoned A-1. Requesting Pre-Application Findings. Review of a three-lot subdivision.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Tim Gawenus, William Schutt & Associates
Mr. Gawenus explained the plans for the proposed subdivision to the members.
It was determined that there are no known wetlands or flood plain located at this site. There will be no flag lots.
Mr. McGuire made a motion, seconded by Chairman Biryla, that the following Pre-application Findings be made based on the submitted site plan received 11/26/2003:
· The total acreage is 24.9
· The desired zoning classification is A-1.
· The number of possible stages of completion is 1.
· The applicant's position with respect to title is owner.
1. The zoning will remain as is.
2. Access to surrounding properties has been addressed by Gartman Road.
3. Recreation area per Section 25-4 of the Town Code is not required.
4. Recreation fees in lieu of recreation area will be provided in accordance with Section 144-70E of the Town Code and shall be paid prior to the Final Plat Plan Public Hearing.
5. Subdivision Development fees, per Section 144-70D of the Town Code, shall be paid prior to the Preliminary Plat Plan Public Hearing.
6. One (1) Street Tree per the Conservation Board's Street Tree Plan shall not be required, as the lots are heavily wooded.
7. The applicant shall complete and submit the Full EAF, Parts 1 and 2 for this Unlisted SEQR action. The Planning Board will seek Lead Agency status with a coordinated review.
8. There will be no further subdividing of these three lots.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
8. P.B. File #23-03, Benderson Development Co., Inc., Vacant land, east side of North Buffalo Road (across from OPCS Federal Credit Union) Zoned B-3 and R-2. Requesting rezoning to B-2 to construct two multi-tenant retail buildings and a retail/office building. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 11/5/03.
APPEARANCE: Mr. James Rumsey, Benderson Development
Mr. Larry Fineberg, Attorney
Mr. Rumsey told the members that Benderson Development is proposing to develop a 53,000-sq. ft. retail and 18,000-sq. ft. professional office project on the east side of North Buffalo Road. The property is zoned B-3 with the rear 250 ft. zoned R-2. The request is to have the entire 5.7 acres be rezoned to B-2. A natural buffer exists at the rear section, however, additional landscaping will added to aid in buffering. Mrs. Biryla confirmed with Mr. Rumsey that the closest residential house to the rear of the site is
located 330 feet from the property. Mr. Fineberg noted that if you position yourself on the site where the parking and building ends, even in the middle of winter without a lot of leaves, you cannot see the houses with the significant buffer that exists.
The Chairman stated that she would like a SEQR coordinated review and a traffic study encompassing all the major intersections in the vicinity of this proposed project. She also requested that the applicants provide information as to what tenants and how many restaurants would be in the plaza. Mr. Rumsey stated that he does not have specific information at this time and can only express what the intentions are for the plaza.
Mr. Fabinsky told the applicants that the Board has questions regarding the type of tenants that will be in the plaza. Mr. Fabinsky stated that he is concerned with approving something and then ending up with something entirely different. He understands that the applicants need flexibility, but at the same time the Board needs to know what will be developed. Mr. Fineberg noted that it is difficult to have tenants commit without knowing if you really have a project. He further explained to the members that it is critical to meet a deadline that exists with Talbot’s as they will move on to another project. The Chairman stated that without a coordinated review and the traffic study, rezoning could not be recommended. She explained the process of SEQR review to the applicants and noted that for a project of this size the time that it will take is not considered to be “a long time”.
Mr. Murray discussed what might be on the second floor of the plaza. It was established that residential, upscale apartments would not be considered. Mr. Rumsey noted that Benderson does not develop residential development. He described it as a “different animal”.
Mr. Fineberg told the members that the Board was now asking them to spend money on a traffic study and SEQR without really knowing if the project will be accepted. Mr. Fabinsky noted that the Board was trying to learn as much as they could, as quickly as they could. The Planning Coordinator verified that the process is always done this way, before the site plan review is performed.
The Board briefly discussed how to proceed with their review of the project. The Chairman canvassed the Board regarding their feelings on how to proceed with the project. The members responded as follows:
Mr. Fabinsky – Likes the proposed project. Unknown if it fits, has concerns with traffic and will require it to be properly buffered.
Mr. Bodden - Feels that this will be great for the community. He does not feel traffic will be a problem.
Mr. McNamara - Feels it is a great project and that it will help the area. He does not feel traffic will be a problem.
Mr. McGuire – Mr. McGuire is in favor of the project, however, he inquired if this would be the only design that the Board will see. The applicants noted that they are willing to adjust the design to meet requests from the Board. They verified that there would be no “L” shapes or other additions made to the project site.
Mr. Murray – Feels this is a wonderful project, however he is uncomfortable moving forward without the traffic impact study. He expressed that there is the “unknown” as to how this fits.
Chairman Biryla - Likes the project and welcomes it. However, she could not make a recommendation on the rezoning at this time.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Chairman Biryla to recommend that the Town Board initiate a coordinated review under the SEQR act for this project with respect to rezoning with the following items to be specifically addressed:
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BODDEN AYE
BIRYLA AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
DATED: 1/22/04 Respectfully, Submitted,
REVIEWED: 1/23/04 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board
Secretary
Lorraine Biryla
Planning Board Chairman