Minutes of the July 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
Michael McGuire
Philip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
EXCUSED: Paul Bodden
Harold Fabinsky
William McNamara
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 June 9, 2004 Planning Board meeting was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mr. McGuire, to ACCEPT the minutes of the June 9, 2004 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. 7:30 P.M., Continuation of Public Hearing, P.B. Sub. File #40-4, proposed Pleasant Acres West Subdivision, Vacant land, north side of New Taylor Road, Zoned R-2 and R-3. Requesting Preliminary Approval of a 98-lot subdivision. Revised Pre-Application Findings made on 10/9/96. Public Hearing adjourned on 6/9/04.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Rob Pidanick, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
The Chairman called the Public Hearing to order and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the project.
IN FAVOR:
Robert Pidanick, Greenman-Pedersen
4950 Genesee Street
Buffalo, New York 14225
Mr. Pidanick stated that he is in favor of the project.
AGAINST: NO RESPONSE
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. McGuire, to ADJOURN the public hearing.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Chairman stated that a copy of an Engineering correspondence, dated July 14, 2004 to Daigler & Associates, has been provided to the Planning Board members. Town Engineer Wayne Bieler, after reviewing the Geotechnical Report prepared by Daigler & Associates and the Pleasant Acres West Subdivision, is requesting additions and revisions be made to the Geotechnical Report. General comments are listed on page one of the correspondence regarding the Geotechnical Report, with specific comments on pages two through four. In addition, there are general comments made regarding the project on page four.
The Chairman noted that the members have not had an opportunity to review this recently received correspondence. She would like the members to submit their comments to the Planning Office by July 20, 2004. On that day, concerns not addressed by Town Engineer Wayne Bieler will be faxed to Daigler & Associates. Daigler & Associates are asked to respond to the Town Engineering comments and the additional faxed comments from the Planning Board members by July 28, 2004.
The Chairman stated that after July 28, 2004 the revised Geotechnical Report will be submitted to SJB Services/Empire
Geo Services. The Chairman established these deadline dates in order to comply with Town Ordinances to insure closure of the Public Hearing in August and have the Board act on this project before the 45-day period that is allowed expires. Mr. Wolf confirmed that the Board could request additional time from the petitioner to extend the 45-day time period.
Mr. Pidanick was provided a copy of the July 14, 2004 Engineering correspondence. He will inform Mr. Lasky and Mr. Daigler of the Chairman’s request to have the revised Geotechnical Report submitted no later than July 28, 2004.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard, TO HIRE SJB Services/Empire Geo Services at a cost of $2,000 to be paid by the developer (Mr. Lasky) for preliminary review of the Geotechnical Report prepared by Daigler & Associates.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD 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 Planning Board acceptance of revised Pre-Application plan. Tabled by the Planning Board on 3/10/04.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Michael Merritt, William Schutt & Associates
Mr. Victor Martucci, Vice President - Marrano Marc Equity Homes
The Chairman told the applicants that because four members were present, all four votes will be needed in order to have a motion pass. The applicants’ options were explained to them. Mr. Merritt told the members that he is asking for acceptance of a plan that has been revised to resolve outstanding engineering and parkland issues.
The Chairman told Mr. Merritt that just prior to tonight’s meeting, the Board received additional comments from the Highway Superintendent and the Town Engineer regarding the revised plan. Copies of these correspondences were provided to the applicants and the Board discussed the comments with the applicants.
During this discussion, Mr. Ostrander told Mr. Merritt that Mr. Bieler prefers that the road be straightened out, for maintenance purposes for plowing. Mr. Martucci noted that the Highway Superintendent did not object to the road alignment and his is the department that would provide the maintenance. However, the Chairman wondered if Mr. Geitter not commenting on the proposed curve in his memo constitutes approval of it.
Referencing Mr. Bieler’s memo regarding the road alignment, Mr. Merritt noted that he finds it disconcerting to be asked to have plans that meet the Town code be revised to have less than the required minimum dimensions in an R2 zone. This would require the developer to apply for variances.
The Chairman told the applicants that Mr. Bieler had conveyed to her his concerns regarding the basin being a wet basin. She stated that Mr. Bieler strongly believes that a town-owned dry basin should be created.
Mr. Merritt told the members that preliminary indications show that a wetted pond would have to exist here. However, he noted that he could work on this and is willing to try to satisfy the Town by designing a Town-owned dry pond. Mr. Merritt further stated that the developer’s intention is to have a minimum loss of lots. The detention basin is shown on the plan at the lowest level of the site, which is seven feet lower than the rest of the property. Mr. Merritt noted that it is clear, from an engineering standpoint that the detention basin has to be located where he has shown it.
The Chairman discussed the proposed access to the detention basin. The access is located within the property being donated to the Town and is approximately thirty-feet wide and several hundred feet in length. Mr. Geitter has noted that it would be difficult for the Town to maintain the access. The Chairman asked Mr. Merritt if he could revise the proposed plan to shorten the length of the access road. Mr. Martucci explained that in meeting the new cul-de-sac specifications he is forced to have the access road designed as presented. Mr. Merritt stated that if the access road were an issue, he would address that with the Town Engineer.
Mr. McGuire asked Mr. Merritt if the detention basin could be moved to lot #21. Mr. Merritt stated that moving it to lot #21 would not work. Presently, the basin is shown as being Town owned and located at the lowest level of the site. However, Mr. Merritt stated that he would further pursue the question of relocating the storm water detention basin.
Mr. Bernard discussed the revised plan, commenting on the layout of lots 5 and 21. Building Inspector Andrew Geist stated that he believed it would be challenging to construct a house on these lots. Mr. Merritt
stated that he would submit a footprint of a home to show that the setback requirements can be met.
Mr. Bernard confirmed with the applicants that each lot meets the minimum frontage requirement. There is no excess frontage that could be used to gain an alternate access to the parkland area. Mr. Merritt noted that the Town has access to the parkland from Baker Road but apparently it is not the access that they desire. He told the members that the project has gone from 24 lots to 21 and that an alternate access
to the parkland area could not be designed without the developer losing another lot.
Mr. Murray noted that it is futile to continue discussing the revised plan without the Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer present, as the revised plan is not compatible with their comments. Mr. Merritt noted that comments made by Mr. Ostrander are contrary to what he was personally told by Mr. Bieler. Mr. Ostrander added that his comments were based on his conversation with Mr. Bieler at 4:15 p.m., today, and on the memos noted earlier.
The Chairman discussed having a special meeting with the parties involved in order to resolve all concerns expressed. The meeting date and time will be arranged by the Chairman.
Mr. McGuire made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard to TABLE this case.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
APPEARANCE: Mr. James Ball, applicant
Mr. Jeff Palumbo, Attorney
Mr. John Ciminelli, Ciminelli Development
Mr. Mark Mussachio, Architect
Mr. McGuire stated that he would be abstaining from voting in this
case.
The Chairman told the applicants that four members were present and that four votes will be needed in order to have a motion pass. Although one member is abstaining from the vote, the alternate member may vote. The applicants’ options were explained to them. The Chairman stated that the applicants could present their information to the members and have a straw vote taken.
The Chairman told the applicants that a phone call from an Auckland Avenue resident regarding buffering and a correspondence from a Mid County Drive business stating concerns regarding safety have been brought to the Board’s attention. In response to these concerns, Mr. Bernard noted that the Board would stipulate that no parking of car carriers would be allowed on Mid County Drive or Southwestern Boulevard. Although the proposed concept plan did not depict a traffic flow pattern, Mr. Ball stated that his intent is to have tractor-trailers enter from Mid County Drive into his site, off load and then
turn around and exit. Mr. Bernard also established that Building “B” will have no garage doors located on the residential side of the building. Only man doors for fire access will exist on this side.
Mr. Bernard discussed the buffering of the site with the applicants. He told Mr. Ball that the parking request should be made for the entire site and that his request should be amended to eliminate “future parking”, noting that the Board would review the entire site plan with the current request.
The Chairman established that an interior roadway would be for circulation only and that Mr. Ball would not park vehicles here.
Mr. Murray confirmed that Mr. Ball’s request no longer includes a convenience store. He also noted that the transition leading to the residential homes should be made in a well thought out way. He told Mr. Ball “the larger the buffer area, the better” and that the goal is to have the transition from business to residential as good as they can make it for the people who live there. Mr. Ball indicated on the site plan where he proposes to build residential homes in the future. He
told the members that he has as much at stake as anyone and he assured the members that great care is being taken in the planning of this project. Mr. Ball discussed the project further and explained its appearance to the members.
The Chairman noted that proper buffering of the area neighbors is important. She would like to reach an agreement with the applicants that would be satisfactory for the neighbors and for the applicants. A discussion of the buffering concluded with Mr. Ball agreeing to have a
75-foot buffer put in place. The first 50’ of the buffer area will consist of the natural vegetation and additional plantings. The next 25’ will be within the road pavement area.
Mr. Bernard stated that the lighting plan had just been received prior to the meeting. Mr. Bernard will advise the applicants of any revisions to be made.
The Chairman polled the Board regarding the rezoning request. The following results were obtained:
Mr. Eugene Majchrzak stated that he is in favor of the project for the rezoning if the petitioner will accommodate the Board’s request to have a 75’ buffer.
Mr. Murray stated that he feels the recommendation for a 75’ buffer is a good concept. He explained to the applicants that this is a recommendation that does not bind the Town Board to what decision
making they might make, relative to a contingency that is put on a request.
Mr. Bernard stated that he does not have a problem with the rezoning request. With regards to the buffering, Mr. Bernard told Mr. Ball he would like to have several parking spaces eliminated. He also described how heavy landscaping planted on islands would aid in blocking the view of parked vehicles. He stated that he feels that an agreement can be reached somewhere between the 50’ and 75’ buffer area that has been discussed.
The Chairman stated that she supports the request for the rezoning.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Majchrzak, to recommend that the Town Board APPROVE the request for rezoning from I-1 and R-4 to B-2 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted full EAF, Parts One and Two and a negative declaration is recommended for the rezoning.
accomplished by eliminating eight (8) parking spaces as shown on the plan presented and by placing heavy landscaping within the two islands shown along the east parking lot area and the buffer on the south side of the driveway. There is to be no parking allowed within seventy-five feet of the lot line along the existing Auckland Avenue residential properties. This will be accomplished by 50’ of substantial landscaping and 25’ of paved driveway with no parking allowed. The islands indicated on the plans in this area shall have substantial landscaping including coniferous trees.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC GUIRE ABSTAINED
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The plans presented have been marked as discussed.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:07p.m.
DATED: 7/15/04 Respectfully, Submitted,
REVIEWED: 7/28/04 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
Lorraine Biryla
Planning Board Chairman