Minutes of the June 9, 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
William McNamara
Philip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
EXCUSED: John Bernard
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 May 12, 2004 Planning Board meeting was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mr. McNamara, to ACCEPT the minutes of the May 12, 2004 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. 7:30 P.M., Continuation of Public Hearing, P.B. Sub. File #40-94, proposed Pleasant Acres West Subdivision, Vacant land, north side of New Taylor Road, Zoned R-3. Requesting Preliminary Approval of a 98-lot subdivision. Revised Pre-Application Findings made on 10/9/96. Public Hearing adjourned on 5/12/04.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Rob Pidanick, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Mr. Elliot Lasky, Forbes Homes
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.
Mr. Jack Patterson
Anastasi Trucking
6495 Transit Road
Bowmansville, NY 14026
Mr. Patterson stated that he is in favor of the project.
Mr. Elliot Lasky, Developer
Forbes Homes
2635 Millersport Highway
Getzville, New York 14068
Mr. Lasky stated that he is in favor of the project.
AGAINST:
Mr. Steve Pokoj
41 Burbank
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Pokoj submitted a petition that had been signed by 26 residents of the Pleasant Acres Subdivision expressing opposition to the previously proposed placement of a public trail adjacent to sub lots 6, 7, 15, 16, 23 and 85.
Mr. Richard Leonard
33 Burbank
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Leonard noted that he still has reservations regarding this property. Mr. Leonard also stated his concerns for the wetlands located here, noting that he does not support mitigation being performed /elsewhere. Mr. Leonard also inquired as to what would
happen with the utility R.O.W. located behind Burbank Drive.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Murray, to CLOSE the public hearing.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Chairman told the applicants that the Planning Board members and the Town of Orchard Park Engineering Department have numerous concerns pertaining to the geotechnical report that had been submitted. A written memo will be sent to the applicants that will list these concerns. She verified with Mr. Pidanick that it had been agreed that the firm “SJB Services/Empire Geo Services” would be hired by the Town of Orchard Park to examine the geotechnical report. She further established that Mr. Lasky would provide the necessary funds for payment of services performed by SJB Services. This money will be held in an escrow account. Mr. Lasky will be notified as to the amount of money that is needed.
The Chairman explained to Mr. Lasky that the possibility of re-opening SEQR still exists.
Mr. Lasky told the members that in 1998 he submitted soil borings to the engineering department that showed the same exact data as now, with more detail. The issues in the Town of Amherst are not the same; a high water table exits here. The design of the homes was based on this knowledge. Mr. Lasky stated that he is confident and willing to wait until SJB returns their report, noting that he would pay for the cost of the evaluation. Mr. Lasky noted that there have been no foundation failures in the Pleasant Acres subdivision.
Mr. Pidanick explained to the members that the site plan had been amended to accommodate the proposed trails and to address the newly adopted cul-de-sac ordinance. He asked that the Board vote on the amended plans that were submitted to the Board on 5/24/04.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Biryla, to APPROVE the amended plan received 5/24/04 as the proposed site plan of record.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Murray asked if an engineering review of the amended plan is needed before voting. Attorney Michael Wolf stated that it was not needed.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED PLAN WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
A discussion followed the vote, wherein Mr. Pidanick explained that it is necessary to amend the original site plan for the present Pleasant Acres subdivision. The revision in the plans involves joining the Pleasant Acres subdivision with the proposed Pleasant Acres West subdivision. A full set of revised plans was submitted on 3/9/04. Mr. Pidanick requested that the Board vote approval of the revised plan. Attorney Michael Wolf explained that the Board could not act on this request until the proposed Pleasant Acres West subdivision is finalized.
The Chairman spoke regarding a correspondence dated 6/4/04 that had been sent to the Board from Highway Superintendent Ron Geitter. A copy was provided to the applicants. It was noted that Mr. Geitter was in agreement with the revisions that had been made by the applicants.
Mr. Pidanick stated that he wished to comment on Mr. Leonard’s concerns regarding the wetlands located at the Pleasant Acres West site. Mr. Pidanick noted that the wetlands will be avoided and preserved.
2. P.B. File #4-04, proposed Fox Run of Orchard Park, Vacant land, southeast corner of California Road and Big Tree Road (Route 20A), Zoned B-2. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a continuing care retirement community. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 2/4/04. Tabled by the Planning Board on 5/12/04.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Raymond J. Stapell, Attorney - Harris Beach
Richard Lake, Architect
Thomas McPherson, Engineer
Ruthie Hunt, United Church Home Society
William Essic, Vice President New life Management
Mr. Bodden noted that he has a business relationship with Fox Run and would abstain from voting.
The Chairman noted that all engineering issues have been addressed. However Mr. Murray established that the proposed lighting would need to be reviewed by Board members, Michael McGuire and John Bernard to verify that all concerns have been resolved.
The Chairman made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky to recommend that the Town Board AUTHORIZE a Building Permit for a continuing care retirement community consisting of 160 independent living apartment units, 30 independent living cottages, a community building, a wellness center and a 101-bed skilled nursing/assisted living facility and APPROVE the site plan received 6/3/04 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the Findings to Approve filed by the Town Board on 5/15/02.
2. A Landscape Completion Bond in accordance with the Conservation Board minutes shall be provided for the approved Landscape Plan which includes 76% green space.
3. The site lighting is limited to those fixtures and poles indicated on the approved site plan. Light fixtures shall have flat lens.
4. No outside storage or display is permitted.
5. Dumpsters as shown shall be screened, along with any additional dumpsters, in accordance with Section 144-25 of the Town Code.
6. Town Engineering Approval has been granted on 6/4/04.
7. If there are any concerns with the proposed lighting plans (after review by Mr. McGuire and Mr. Bernard) the Board reserves the right to have the applicant return and address these concerns.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN ABSTAINED
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. P.B. Sub. File #10-04, proposed subdivision on vacant land, east side of Scherff Road, north of Gartman Road, Zoned A-1. Requesting Pre-Application Findings of a nine-lot subdivision.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Michael Crapsi, property owner
Mr. Gregory Carballada, Architect
The applicants presented and explained the proposed plans for a 9-lot subdivision. There will be 4 lots approximately 1-1/2 – 2 acres in size located on Scherff Road and 5 five-acre lots located in the back portion. A twenty-acre parcel will be an exception lot and it is the intention of the applicant to build his home on this site. A ravine located here prevents further subdividing of the parcel.
Mr. McNamara asked the applicant to describe the topography of the parcel for the members. Mr. Carballada told the members that the site consists of approximately 54 acres with a pond located on it. There is an area with trees located at the rear portion and a ravine. It was established that the removal of existing trees would occur only to construct the road. The property located along Scherff Road is an open area. It was further established that there are no sewers and Mr. Carballada told the members that the Health Department has been contacted for information regarding septic systems. Mr. Bodden established that runoff currently travels to the ravine. Mr. Murray inquired about wetlands and Mr. Carballada told the members that there does not appear to be any. However, this will be investigated. Mr. Fabinsky verified with the applicant that they are aware of the specific code requirements regarding runoff. Mr. Carballada stated that they are aware of the requirements and that a drainage study would be performed.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to GRANT the following Preapplication Findings based on the submitted site plan received 6/3/04 and the applicant has detailed:
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
· The total acreage is +/-54.
· 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 Scherff Road.
3. 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.
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 for this Unlisted SEQR action. The Planning Board will seek Lead Agency status with a coordinated review.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
4. P.B. File #22-04, Timothy Neal, 3245 Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board approval of directional signage.
APPEARANCE: Peter Sorge, Attorney
Mr. Timothy Neal, applicant
Mr. Larry Rukowski, applicant
The Chairman told the applicants that the Board does not review requests for “stop signs”. The applicants will have to contact the police department with that request.
Mr. Sorge explained that the Town Board had granted approval for Quizno’s to operate in the Block Buster Plaza with two conditions; two directional signs must be erected, one noting “no left turn” and the
second to read “rear entrance/exit”. Mr. Sorge presented information on the signs to the members.
The Chairman discussed parking spaces with the applicants. Mr. Sorge explained that 13 additional parking spaces had been acquired by directing that the plaza employees park in the Tops Plaza parking area. The Chairman noted that as the Town Board had already approved this, there was nothing she could do.
Mr. Murray established that no consideration had been given to the requirements for handicap parking spaces. The applicants stated that they had relied on the current use and that they would look into this, although they consider themselves to be in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Murray asked for clarification on the directional signage and discussed the traffic pattern with the applicants. This discussion concluded with the applicants noting that the adjacent Arby’s is a separate parcel from the Block Buster Plaza.
The Chairman established that there is no drive through service. She further discussed the traffic patterns that exist in this area, noting that it is highly dangerous. She stated that there is no direct way for traffic to enter and proceed to Quizno’s from Orchard Park Road. Mr. Sorge noted that the applicants were following what the Town Board had stipulated. He further stated that, hopefully, the addition of one new access point would help the situation.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that he feels the two signs being requested are not clear enough. The signs were discussed further and Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander told the members that he and Town Engineer Wayne Bieler had recommended the wording for the signs.
Mr. Fabinsky asked Supervising Building Inspector Andrew Geist if the signs meet the town code. Mr. Geist noted that the signs are at the discretion of the Planning Board.
Mr. Bodden made a motion, seconded by Mr. McNamara to GRANT approval of two directional signs based on the submitted plans received 6/2/04 with the following conditions:
1. This is a Type II SEQR action and therefore no determination of significance is required.
2. Two (2) signs are approved and permitted by Section 144-38H of the Town Code.
3. The directional signs measure 12” high by 24” wide with a maximum overall height of 48”. The signs will indicate “No Left Turn” and “Rear Entrance/Exit”.
4. The directional signs will not be illuminated.
5. The signs will be located per the approved location plan dated 6/2/04.
6. A permit fee shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-70A(1).
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Fabinsky stated that he would defer to the good judgement of the town engineer regarding the wording being sought on the signage.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
5. P.B. File #12-04, Boston Valley Terra Cotta, 6860 South Abbott Road, Zoned A-1. Requesting a Building Permit to construct an 18,000 sq.ft. building, install a perimeter access road and demolish a 670 sq.ft. building. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 3/17/04.
APPEARANCE: The petitioner failed to appear.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden to TABLE this case in the absence of the petitioner.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
6. P.B. File #21-04, Jim Ball, 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 a new car dealership. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 6/1/04.
APPEARANCE: Mr. James Ball, applicant
Mr. Peter Sorge, Attorney
Mr. John Ciminelli, Ciminelli Development
Mr. Mark Mussachio, Architect
The Chairman told the applicants that a motion would require four (4) “ayes” to be passed, as there were only five Board members present. A motion receiving fewer votes would be automatically defeated. The Chairman explained that the applicants have the option of the members hearing the case and voting on what is presented this evening, or they may wait until the next meeting for the vote to be held with additional Board members present. It was determined that the applicants would present their case and the Chairman would poll the Board, giving the applicants the opportunity to choose to have the Board vote at this meeting or at next month’s meeting.
The Chairman noted that the site plan has been revised. A portion of the parking area has now been designated “future parking” and the convenience store has been eliminated. In response to questions regarding this project the applicants provided the following:
Mr. Sorge stated that they feel that the benefit of rezoning the property will be positive for the Town of Orchard Park. This is a four-million dollar project that will generate a tax base and help the school district. The project will also provide approximately 35 jobs, allow Mr. Ball to continue a successful business, and use property that has been unable to be used in the past.
In regards to the number of proposed parking spaces, this figure has been adjusted to 506, with a balance of the parking space noted as “future parking”. Mr. Sorge noted that one of the concerns that the Board noted at the previous meeting were the vehicles stored at various locations in the Town of Orchard Park and the likelihood of having these vehicles stored at the proposed lot. Mr. Sorge assured
the Board that this would not happen. The property will be self-sustaining, meaning that only the dealership on the property will be using the parking facilities.
Mr. Ball explained to the members that he has contracted to be a Suzuki dealer (which is a small franchise operation) and is now able to discuss his plans openly. He noted that the site is approximately seventeen acres and that a small franchise is generally placed on five
acres of land. However, the opportunity for him to acquire additional franchises exists and the plan presented reflects the possible future growth of his operations. Mr. Ball indicated on the site plan what his operations would include. He also discussed the vehicles that are being stored at various Orchard Park locations. He explained that the vehicles are being stored due to the factory shutting down production
of certain lines. Mr. Ball stated that he does not have plans to store the vehicles at this site. He further confirmed that there would be no convenience store. There will be a service reception area that will contain accessory items for existing customers.
Mr. Ball stated that he plans to have a 50-ft. buffer along Auckland Avenue. He also told the members that he intends to develop the existing R4 area with residential homes. With regards to the tax base concerns voiced by the members, Mr. Sorge explained that Mr. Ciminelli has not been able to develop this property since 1972 as industrial, as there are certain challenges with this property. Mr. Ciminelli described the history of the property and reviewed an aerial map with the members. Mr. Ciminelli told the members that he feels that what Mr. Ball is proposing is not out of character for the area.
Mr. McNamara noted that the project has an Erie County Water Authority easement located on the site. The applicants stated that they are aware of this. The proposal before the Board is a concept plan and this issue will be addressed later.
Mr. Bodden discussed the concept of building homes in the R4 portion. The applicants noted that they have met with the area residents and plan to work with them in the future. The residents are approximately 390 feet from the proposed building and 100 feet away from the parking lot.
The Chairman established that Mr. Ball has not had any complaints in over two years from residents at his existing dealership. Mr. Sorge noted that a buffer will be installed and that evergreen trees will be planted to help year round with the buffering. Mr. Bodden noted that
he would like the applicants to keep as much of the natural buffer that exists here and trees. It was further established that Mr. Ball would be purchasing the property adjacent to Chem Lawn on the south west side of Mid County Drive with an existing building that would be used for office functions.
Mr. Fabinsky noted particular concerns that he had with this project. The applicants explained that they would make all efforts to have disturbances, i.e. noise and lighting located as far away from Auckland Avenue as possible. Mr. Fabinsky asked the applicants to explain what the advantage would be for the Town of Orchard Park to rezone this property. In addition, he asked the applicants to explain
the “future parking” shown on the proposal and to describe their plan regarding buffering.
Mr. Sorge noted that there would be 506 parking spaces and 300 “future parking” spaces. Mr. Fabinsky stated that he would consider not voting against this project if the “future parking” shown was not
called “future parking”. Mr. Fabinsky would like the applicants to come back to the Board for approval of additional parking when it is needed.
A discussion regarding the SEQR requirements and the legal aspects involved concluded with Attorney Michael Wolf advising that the Board could recommend approval with a stipulation to return to the Planning Board for approval of any additional parking needs. Mr. Fabinsky also stated that he would like the applicants to increase the 50-foot buffer zone. Mr. Sorge noted that these concerns would be addressed during the site plan review.
Mr. Mussachio told the members that the light levels at the property lines would be at zero.
Mr. Murray stated that concept #1 described the project to be a single franchise with extra parking. Concept #2 seems to be for a multiple franchise on the site with no external parking taking place. In addition, another parcel has been added that will connect to this. Mr. Murray confirmed that the proposal is for the site presented with two franchises, a parcel of land and the parking that goes with it. Mr. Murray established that external parking might take place. Mr. Ball noted that he would be lying if he stated that no external parking would occur with a make of vehicles not connected to the two franchises. He explained that if the dealership were low on inventory it would not make sense to rent an area to store vehicles that could be kept at the dealership. However, he further noted that it is not his primary intent.
The Chairman, noting that Mr. Ciminelli has tried to market this property for quite some time, stated that she feels that most industrial businesses would not want to be located at this site. She supports the request and would like the applicants to appear before the Board when they decide to develop the future parking spaces. At that time the applicants will be required to explain why they need the additional parking.
The Chairman polled the Board with the following results:
Mrs. Biryla, in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Murray, not ready to vote in favor of rezoning at this moment.
Mr. McNamara, in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Bodden, in favor, this proposal fits in the area.
Mr. Fabinsky, not ready to vote with out further clarification on the buffer, both in terms of sounds and light intrusion.
The results were three in favor and two against.
Further discussion regarding buffering of noise and lighting concluded with the Planning Coordinator suggesting that the Board recommend that the Town Board initiate the SEQR process and reconvene next month with a full Board present. The applicants are requested to contact Board members John Bernard and Michael McGuire regarding the proposed lighting plans.
Mr. Ball noted that he is flexible and willing to address the Board’s concerns, although he is operating under a time constraint and does not want to lose the Suzuki franchise.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Murray, to RECOMMEND that the Town Board initiate the SEQR process.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
DATED: 6/15/04 Respectfully, Submitted,
REVIEWED: 6/16/04 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
Lorraine Biryla
Planning Board Chairman