Minutes of the May 12, 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
Philip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
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 April 14, 2004 and April 28, 2004 Planning Board meetings were unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Bernard noted the following correction to the April 14, 2004 minutes: Page 7, condition #2, under the motion, should read, “has been addressed by Ellicott Road”, not Armor Duells Road.
Mr. Bodden noted that on page 9 of the April 14th minutes the first sentence reading, “Mr. Bodden also established that the proposed subdivision is located at the top of a hill.” He would like the sentence to read, “Mr. Bodden also established that the proposed entrance to said subdivision is located at the top of a hill.”
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to ACCEPT the minutes of the April 14, 2004 meeting as corrected.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
A motion was made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr.Fabinsky, to ACCEPT the minutes of the April 28, 2004 Special meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC GUIRE 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 4/28/04.
The Chairman called the Public Hearing to order. She noted that a memo dated May 11, 2004 was received from the Town Engineer and that it would be entered into the permanent file.
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 subdivision.
OPPOSED:
Mr. Steve Pokoj
41 Burbank
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Pokoj stated that he is opposed to the subdivision.
Mr. Richard Leonard
33 Burbank
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Leonard stated that he did not want to be repetitious, as he had spoken at the prior meeting, but he has reservations about this project.
Mr. Ed Bukoski
37 Burbank
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Bukoski stated that he opposes the subdivision.
Ms. Joanne Rodgers
53 Burbank
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Ms. Rodgers stated that she opposes the subdivision.
Mr. John Sparks
6198 Taylor Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Sparks stated that he opposes the subdivision.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to ADJOURN the Public Hearing for the following reasons:
1. There are no further comments.
2. The engineering plans have not been complete and available for full review by the public.
3. A memo from the Engineering Department dated May 11, 2004 has just been received.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
ON THE QUESTION:
Attorney Michael Wolf established that the meeting would be adjourned until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board to be held on June 9th, 2004.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Rob Pidanick, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Mr. Lasky, developer
Chairman Biryla told Mr. Pidanick that the Engineering Department needs to have amended plans that reflect the revised cul-de-sac designs to meet the Town Code. She also explained to Mr. Pidanick that she has many concerns and questions after reading the geotechnical report. She is concerned that the report notes that a qualified individual shall be retained to provide soil engineering services during the site preparation, excavation and other construction phases of the proposed project in order to observe compliance with the design concept, specifications and recommendations, as well as to allow design changes in the event the subsurface conditions differ than from those now anticipated. Chairman Biryla stated that the report also indicates that basements must be no more than 2 feet below the existing ground level and that a geotechnical engineer must be on site for every house that is built.
Mr. Pidanick noted that a SEQR Negative Declaration had been issued by the Planning Board in connection with the project. All the information regarding the soils was in the document that was approved and accepted
by the Planning Board in 2001. Chairman Biryla, referred to the Engineering Department memo dated May 11th, 2004, noted that it states “we have requested soil testing since the project was first proposed in 1994. The conditions of the soils were not known until we received the geotechnical report that was received on March 18, 2004 (nearly 10 years after our request)”. Mr. Pidanick stated that he believes that information to be incorrect. He also stated that he has not had an opportunity to see this memo and is unable to comment on it. Mr. Pidanick noted that because there are concerns, Mr. Jim Bagler, author of the geotechnical report, and Mr. Don Owens, of Earth Dimensions, are present to answer the questions members may have.
Mr. Murray asked if the geotechnical report dated 2004, which contains information the Board never saw before, was included in the SEQR document on which the Board determined that a negative declaration was appropriate. Mr. Pidanick stated that it was not, but that they indicated in the expanded Part 3 that they identified the soil types that are located on the site and that mitigation in connection with the basements would be necessary. Mr. Murray stated that it would be acceptable to say that the new information that was not available in the year 2000 would give the Board more comfort if it had the chance to include this information in the SEQR process; whether it means the SEQR process gets re-opened or whether it means that the Board simply goes through a series of questions over a period of time to get clarification. Mr. Murray stated that his most important point is that there is information available now that was not available in the year 2000 and because of this factor he would like that to be inserted or incorporated into the SEQR documents because it is possible, perhaps not likely, that the Board would re-think its negative declaration.
Mr. Lasky stated that he developed the original Pleasant Acres and that the record is replete with references to the design of the project, which took into consideration the water table, and which was well known. He further stated that he has spent over $250,000 installing a ditch that drains Pleasant Acres and this project site. He noted that the geotechnical report came after the negative declaration, but he feels there is no new information in terms of any change to the soil conditions since the negative declaration was issued. He also feels that SEQR, as a matter of procedure is closed but he is willing to scientifically address any concerns the Board may have. He stated his belief that this soil situation is not comparable to what Amherst is experiencing because it is strictly that the water table is high on the site but he has designed foundations to avoid this problem.
Mr. Murray stated that he believes there is new data that was not included in the original SEQR document on which the Board based its negative declaration. Therefore, that is a basis on which the Board must consider the re-opening of the SEQR process. Mr. Murray further stated
that he has reviewed the files from the Barrington Heights Subdivision. He read the soil mitigation explanation regarding some of the questionable soil at the site. He would include in a re-opened SEQR inquiry on Pleasant Acres West the question as to whether any of the soil which was referred to in the Barrington SEQR document was among the 1,000 +/- tons of soil that was transferred from that site to Pleasant Acres West, because there were loose ends that were left as to the content of some of that soil at Barrington Heights. These two points were offered as a basis on which Mr. Murray advocates the re-opening of the SEQR. He will await Attorney Michael Wolf’s input as to whether that would be proper or not.
Mr. Lasky stated that legally he does not believe that there is a vehicle to re-open SEQR and that he will be 110% cooperative. He believes Mr. Patterson (present at this meeting) retained Barron Associates to do the geotechnical report because Mr. Fabinsky had some concerns regarding the soils. He further stated that the experts present could address any questions the Board has relating to the soil. He further stated that experts present could address any questions the Board has related to the soil conditions.
Mr. Bernard stated that at the last meeting the sewer system had been discussed. In regards to this, he asked Mr. Pidanick what prohibits having the lift station being gravity drained to the west. Mr. Pidanick told the members that an easement is needed from the adjoining property owner, Mr. Dennis Boyle. The discussion concluded with Mr. Lasky confirming that he is still negotiating with Mr. Boyle and that he would contact Mr. Boyle again regarding the easement.
Mr. Bernard confirmed with Mr. Pidanick that the revised preliminary plans would show details such as elevated basins, a roadway with grading, contours, islands, etc. Mr. Pidanick stated the plans would show the details that Mr. Bernard is looking for. He further noted that two cul-de-sacs have been revised to meet the new ordinance. A third cul-de-sac will be eliminated and redesigned.
Mr. Pidanick stated that detailed preliminary plat plans had been submitted to the Engineering Department on March 9, 2004. It was early April when he learned of the new cul-de-sac regulations. At the last meeting he presented how it would affect the plat if they increased the size of the courts. He found that this was workable.
Mr. Lasky told the Board that it sounds to him like an issue is being created where there is none. He stated that this soil type is not unusual in other areas that have been developed in Orchard Park. There have been no problems creating any foundations that he is aware of.
Mr. Fabinsky stated he would like to see the advantages of rescinding the negative declaration and issuing a positive declaration, which would allow the Town to contract for a consultant to review the geotechnical report. Mr. Lasky stated that another year will cost him another $180,000 in delays. Mr. Fabinsky stated that the Board has to bear in mind that homeowners in the Town of Amherst are suing that town. Long after Mr. Lasky’s partnership with the Town of Orchard Park is gone, there may be issues with the homes and soil and the money trail will lead to the Town of Orchard Park. He stated that the Board would have to look at whether the Town of Orchard Park is willing to take even the slightest chance of allowing the creation of homes that could become a nightmare to the homeowners and whether we leave the Town vulnerable to litigation.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that in terms of some of the soil, Mr. Murray indicated that there were still things that needed to be looked at from the soil trucked in from Barrington for potential fill. One of the other concerns was the fact that additional soil had been trucked in that was not from the Barrington site. In addition to that, other materials besides soil were trucked in. He wonders if Mr. Lasky has information regarding where the additional soils or other material were from. Mr. Lasky stated that he believes Mr. Patterson has that information.
Mr. Fabinsky briefly discussed the problem that existed with the originally proposed trail and how access to the park internally from the original Pleasant Acres into Pleasant Acres West would affect Mr. Pokoj. Mr. Pidanick stated that they are prepared to offer an alternate design. Mr. Lasky stated that the proposal creates an economic sacrifice for him, but that he believes everyone will be pleased.
Mr. Bodden asked that a copy of the memo from the Town Engineer be provided to Mr. Pidanick.
Mr. McNamara stated that it appears that the applicant has a plan to mitigate the soil conditions that are less than favorable to build on. He is concerned that the Town of Orchard Park will be the only entity twenty years down the road that dissatisfied homeowners can legally fall back on. He wonders if something can be incorporated into the deed restrictions to hold the Town of Orchard Park not liable for any problems with foundations, etc. Mr. Lasky stated that if it were possible, he would
incorporate this. Mr. McNamara noted that with regard to liability, there is cost to defend and cost to indemnify.
The Chairman stated that perhaps there may never be an issue of legal liability, but she has a moral obligation to the future residents of this subdivision and she is very concerned about that.
Mr. Lasky stated that the New York State building code has been revised and that one of the revisions is to require soil borings and a certified foundation design for the soil conditions. Even with poor soil conditions, this does not mean that a site is not buildable. Mr. Lasky assured the Board that his own reputation comes into focus and he does not want to build anything that is an embarrassment or a nightmare. He believes that he has all the issues properly addressed. Mr. Pidanick stated that the revised New York State building code of 2003 takes a better look at the soils. The Chairman stated that she understands that just about anything can be engineered. If it is done properly, there will be no problems.
Mr. Pidanick stated that he met with Town Engineer Wayne Bieler and that the revised trail plan being presented was a result of that meeting. Mr. Pidanick explained that a pubic road would be built to connect to the park area. Mr. Pidanick indicated on the site plan that two lots will be lost, but the opportunity may exist by re-working the plan to gain back one of these lots.
Mr. Bernard stated that the plan would eliminate the trail controversy and the Highway Superintendent’s concern of having too many cul-de-sacs in general in the town. Mr. Bernard feels that this proposal is a win/win situation.
Mr. Lasky stated that this is a true physical link from one subdivision to another without a barrier. He would like the Board to realize that he is trying to work in a spirit of total cooperation. In addition to the two lots that are lost, although they make one up on the cul-de-sac, they have to build a very large culvert to cross it, at great expense. He believes that this plan will make everyone happy. Mr. Pidanick noted that the amended plan would reflect these changes.
The Chairman stated that board would review the revised trail plan presented.
Mr. Fabinsky rescinded his concern regarding the proposed trail.
Mr. Jim Bagler and Mr. Owens were introduced to the members to answer any questions the Board might have. The Chairman established that Mr. Bagler had prepared the geotechnical report presented.
Mr. Bagler stated that he is very familiar with the soil conditions in Orchard Park and feels he knows what can and cannot be done. The Chairman told Mr. Bagler that the Town’s Engineer is concerned with the soil conditions because of the infrastructure that has to be constructed. She asked if Junior Engineer Tom Ostrander was aware of Mr. Bieler’s concerns and if he could comment on them. Mr. Ostrander discussed Mr. Bieler’s concern that dealt with “weight of hammer”. Mr. Bagler told the
members that borings had taken place in December of 2003, which is when the water table is traditionally at its highest.
The Chairman referenced the following statement in Mr. Bagler’s report and asked him to elaborate on it: “It is recommended that a qualified individual be retained to provide soil engineering services during the site preparation, excavation and other construction phases of the proposed project”. Mr. Bagler stated that he finds that there is the potential when looking through the bore hole logs to find different conditions throughout. Mr. Bagler stated that he made that statement in the report so that someone is present to observe the soil conditions to determine whether or not they actually meet the specifications that have been laid out in the report. The Chairman asked who this might be? Mr. Bagler stated that it could be anyone with a general knowledge of earthwork, such as an experienced contractor. It does not have to be a geotechnical engineer. He believes it is wise to have someone there whose interest is not necessarily that of the contractor. He believes this individual should have the responsibility to determine whether the project is being built according to the requirements.
Mr. Murray stated that Mr. Lasky had stated earlier in the meeting that there were no soil problems. Mr. Murray wondered why the term “unsuitable soil” is used in the report by Mr. Bagler, since the term “unsuitable” suggests to a casual reader that it is not suitable. He asked Mr. Bagler to elaborate on what he believes the unsuitability is, given Mr. Lasky’s comment that there are no soil problems. Mr. Lasky responded that “no soil problems” does not mean that there are not soil conditions that have to be dealt with. Mr. Bagler stated that it relates to the points that Mr. Ostrander had mentioned, as well as Mr. Bieler’s concerns. He noted that when one reviews the bore hole logs, one might see weight of hammer and very low blow counts that indicate very low soil conditions, typically in the upper two to three feet of the soil. He further stated that if one excavates down further and still sees these values, that would indicate unsuitability. Mr. Bagler noted that he computed a bearing capacity in this condition at less than 500 pounds per square foot, which is unsuitable. Mr. Murray verified with Mr. Bagler that his report indicates that for each new house foundation poured, someone qualified would need to be present to determine the suitability of the soil.
Mr. Murray noted that the report dated February 2004 does not address the presence of elements in the soil. Mr. Murray is concerned that in comparable locations in Orchard Park we have found selenium that exceeds the threshold. He would like to know if Mr. Bagler tested the elements in the soil that pre-existed the 1,000-ton re-location of the soil from a location that contained selenium (Barrington Heights). Mr. Bagler stated that he had not looked at the chemical nature of the soil. Mr. Murray asked Mr. Bagler, as the author of the report, if he would be prepared to document whether he is aware if soil containing selenium was transported to the Pleasant Acres site. Mr. Bagler stated that he
would like to review the logs, but he does not recall seeing that any fill had been brought to the site. Mr. Owens stated that there was no fill at any of the boring locations. However, there was a fill pile on the site. Mr. Murray stated that there would be chemistry questions regarding the areas where there was no fill and there would be chemistry questions where there was fill. He further recalled that the developer had documented the problems that existed with the soil that was moved onto the site. Mr. Lasky stated that this is not a correct statement. He told the members that he did not document that there were problems with the soil at the Barrington Heights Subdivision. A permit had been obtained from the Town that allowed him to move the surplus soil from the excavation of the lake at Barrington to the areas that they knew it was needed. All the soil testing was done in virgin earth conditions; they did not test the fill from Barrington. Mr. Murray asked Mr. Lasky if he is suggesting that the soil placed on this site has none of the selenium that is referred to in the report for Barrington Heights. Mr. Lasky replied that he did not know if it did or did not. Mr. Murray stated that he did not know either. Mr. Murray concluded that a further SEQR investigation would be appropriate based on the fact that none of us know. Mr. Murray stated that Mr. Lasky’s testing revealed that there was selenium that exceeded the threshold of the eastern boundary criteria that was used as the standard of mitigation. Mr. Lasky stated that exceeding the threshold was not a violation of any EPA standard. Mr. Murray stated that in Mr. Lasky’s report the following was stated: “It is not a problem because the soil content is so hard at Barrington, it is not going to seep in anyway”. Mr. Murray stated that one could see how this would lead to a question, because if you move that soil to a place that is very, very wet then you could not maintain the same mitigation statement.
Mr. McGuire noted that he had reviewed Town Engineer’s memo of May 11, 2004 wherein it requests that reports be given that fully detail the methods and materials to be used for construction of the roadway, utilities and ponds, etc. and the methods and materials used for construction of the homes within the subdivision. Noting that Mr. Bagler is the expert for the developer, Mr. McGuire asked if he is also working with the engineering company to address these issues. Mr. Bagler stated
that his role in preparation of the geotechnical report was to review the soil properties and provide information for certain procedures and methods that are recommended for soil placement and excavation. He indicated that if Mr. McGuire is referring to technical specifications, he believes that what he provides is information required for engineers to prepare a specification.
To address Mr. McGuire’s question, Mr. Lasky responded that the Town Engineer had requested foundation designs for these types of conditions and that several plans had been submitted for his review. Mr. Lasky further told the members that for each building permit a design and soil tests are required.
Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Bagler to comment on the soil settlement potential that is described in his report after the soil has been disturbed. He wondered how this would compare to the norm. Mr. Bagler stated that any soil, unless it is solid rock, is subject to some settlement. He noted that there is a potential for settlement in this soil because of its loose nature, and the procedures he defines in the report are to proof roll and then compact those soils. Once compacted, the one-inch total settlement and ¾ inches of differential settlement are engineering building standards for allowable settlements. Given those procedures of proof rolling, packing and observing that those procedures have been followed, the total settlement should be less than that, which are allowable settlements amounts.
Mr. Bagler noted that his job as a geotechnical engineer is to describe, and he believes it is important to describe the types of things that can go wrong. He further stated that the issue with this soil, being sandy and silty, is erosion. In the presence of “weight of rod” or “weight of hammer”, this means that this soil is easily disturbed and will not have a lot of shear strength. He further noted that in reviewing the “weight of rod” in the boreholes, one would see that the soil has been disturbed. Also, the soil begins to become weaker in the presence of water when disturbed. It is his job to point out these types of things and advise what can be done to help prevent any problems. Mr. Bagler stated that the design plans note that the recommendations contained in his report should be followed. In addition, the design plans state that there is to be steel in the foundations. Mr. Bagler noted that he usually recommends steel foundations, but had not for this project and that he re-read his report before coming to the meeting and realizes that it seems a little alarming.
Mr. Bernard (referencing the report) asked if the 500# bearing capacity computation Mr. Bagler referred to earlier in the meeting was based on the topsoil or the soil two feet down. Mr. Bagler responded that he looked at the drawings for the subdivision and talked to Mr. Patterson and Mr. Pidanick, who told him where footers would be placed. Mr. Bagler focused his attention on soil bearing capacity at that elevation and about four feet below that. Mr. Bernard noted that this would be about ¼ or 1/5 of what would be considered normal. Mr. Bagler stated it is about 1/3 of what is acceptable. It is unsuitable in that condition, but it is readily compacted. He explained that the only problem would be if they tried to compact the silt under water, they would have immediate problems, as the compactor will sink. The water level was recently registered at the site between four and nine feet below grade.
Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Bagler if the recommendation in the report that states “trench ports and seepage collars may be provided” is something he expects someone to pick up in the design? Mr. Bagler explained that he believes someone who understands these issues must observe and be
aware of them and he noted that it is too much speculation for him to say that it should be a requirement.
The Chairman asked for clarification of the following sentence contained in the report: “Concrete basement floor slabs must be properly designed and shall be isolated from the foundation walls to reduce the possibility of cracking and displacement of the floor’s slab by differential motion between the slab and the foundation wall”. Mr. Bagler stated that a properly designed slab means that someone has looked at the subgrade, designed the proper amount of subgrade material (he suggests about 4 inches), that they properly select the thickness, that they have determined the minimum compressive strength for the concrete and that he recommends intrained fibers. Mr. Lasky noted that he is not an engineer and that each foundation will have to be designed and certified after each individual lot soil boring.
Mr. Fabinsky asked how unstable soil conditions would be dealt with if the applicant were digging for gas/water pipes and the sides of trenches caved in. Mr. Bagler explained that he would plan for the sides of the trenches to collapse, or he would use a de-watering process to keep the sides from collapsing. Mr. Fabinsky asked what would happen if the trench back filled. Mr. Bagler stated that the water would return. Mr. Fabinsky noted that a large amount of soil had been removed from Barrington which both the Board and Engineering Department were aware of. Mr. Fabinsky stated that he traveled this route on a daily basis and observed that there were truckloads of material being brought in long after the soil from Barrington had been moved. He stated that what was being trucked in was clearly a different color and texture. Mr. Fabinsky further stated that some testing had been performed on the Barrington soil for potential problems. However, the Board has no idea of what was trucked in after the Barrington transfer was completed. He asked if the applicants know what had been transferred here. Mr. Bagler stated that he simply provided a report on the existing soil. Mr. Lasky told the members that a report prepared by Barron Associates contains this information and that they have been provided a copy.
Mr. Fabinsky established that the Town of Orchard Park requires a performance bond to cover 100% of the cost of the project’s infrastructure. The bond remains in effect for a two-year period after the completion of the project and the streets are dedicated.
Mr. Lasky told the members that he is cooperating with the Board and has revised his plans to meet the Town Engineer’s most recent requests.
The Chairman adjourned the case. She told the members that if they have any further questions these are to be submitted in writing to the Planning Coordinator, who will submit them to the proper person.
2. 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. Final Public Hearing held on 4/14/04.
Appearance: Mr. Rob Pidanick, Greenman-Pedersen
Mr. Dominic Piestrak, Developer
The Chairman noted that two concerns exist that would not affect the request before the Board. She told the applicants that during preliminary plat plan approval two stub roads had been approved that were to connect with Fox Chapel Drive. Mr. Bernard noted that the plans have been modified since the SEQR review regarding the traffic study. One stub road is in place, and the other has been eliminated. Mr. Bernard believes that the Board must consider this change as they go forward. Chairman Biryla also noted that a correspondence had been received advising the Board that construction vehicles are using Fox Chapel Drive as an access to the Birdsong development. Mr. Piestrak explained that the plan is to have the construction traffic come into the Birdsong site via Old Transit Road.
The members discussed ways to alleviate the construction vehicles using Fox Chapel Drive. Attorney Michael Wolf stated that Fox Chapel Drive is a public road and is available to anyone. Further discussion concluded with Mr. Piestrak offering to erect a sign to direct construction vehicles to not use Fox Chapel Drive. He noted that he does not own the land where the sign would be placed. In addition, Mr. Piestrak will inform the construction trade and those involved in the Birdsong project to not use Fox Chapel Road. He will also contact Highway Superintendent Ron Geitter for assistance.
Mr. Fabinsky asked the applicants to provide an overlay that would show the revised conservation easement area. Mr. Piestrak stated that this had been provided. Mr. Piestrak told the members that the revised conservation easement area has been increased and that he would be donating $500/lot in each phase for improvements to the Town-owned
park within the existing subdivision. The Chairman confirmed that Mr. Piestrak would be donating $38,500 for this 77-lot phase. The Recreation Committee will determine how this money is used.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that he has a concern voting for final approval and not knowing how the revised conservation area compares to the original plan. He would like to know if the area is in sections or contiguous.
The Chairman confirmed with Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander that the project has received engineering approval.
Mr. Bernard confirmed with the Planning Coordinator that all fees have been paid for this phase.
The Chairman made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to Grant Conditional Final Plat Plan Approval to this 77 lot subdivision based on the submitted preliminary plat plan received 4/14/2004 with the following conditions:
1. Conditional Preliminary Plat Plan approval was granted on 7/09/03.
2. A findings statement was issued on 8/14/96.
3. Public Hearing and Subdivision Development fees have been paid.
4. The developer has agreed to provide $500 per lot for recreation fees to be used to enhance the park.
5. One (1) Street Tree per the Conservation 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 5/5/04.
7. All approvals are contingent upon conformity to Conservation Board recommendations as indicated in Conservation Board minutes.
8. All understandings, covenants and agreements that are part of the written record are incorporated as conditions of approval.
9. Future parts’ plans shall be updated regarding the SEQR impact based upon full access into Fox Chapel and any of the thresholds previously identified.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Fabinsky noted that in the absence of the revised conservation area plan, he would have faith in the Conservation Board’s recommendation ensuring the green space area. He had planned to abstain, but instead will vote. Mr. Piestrak stated that he would have his engineer provide Mr. Fabinsky with the overlay maps.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. P.B. File #17-04, Duff’s Famous Wings of Orchard Park, 3090 Orchard Park Road, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board approval of outside seating.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Nicholas Pittas, President
Mr. Fabinsky verified with the petitioner that no seats would be added to the restaurant and that there would be no change in their location, other than by approval of the Board.
Mr. Bernard noted that there were two concept plans being presented. The applicant noted that he preferred the concept plan indicating the outside bar and tables; the other plan was just for outside seating.
The members noted that they did not favor the idea of having an outside bar. Further discussion by the Board established that the bar area would not be accessible from the outside. Mr. Pittas stated that individuals would need to proceed into the restaurant to access the outside bar area and this area would be fenced in. Mr. Pittas noted that the Liquor Authority has given approval, contingent upon his receiving Planning Board approval. Mr. Pittas stated that he would like to have outside seating for forty patrons. The plan presented proposes five tables and the bar area located within approximately 700 square feet in front of the building. It is believed that the green space area requirement is still met and it was further confirmed that no parking spaces are being eliminated. Parking spaces at the site are in compliance with the code.
Mr. Murray stated that the agenda was advertised as a request for outside seating and he has no difficulty acting on the outside seating
request. However, if there is a petition for an outside bar that, request should be placed as an agenda item.
Mr. McGuire verified that the entire outside area will be enclosed with access only through the interior of the building.
Mr. Fabinsky verified that the applicant would be in compliance with the 15% green space requirement.
The Chairman polled the Board regarding the request to have the outside bar area in addition to the outside seating. Mr. Murray and Mr. Bernard stated that they would only consider voting for outside seating.
Mr. Bodden made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to APPROVE the rendering as proposed to include five (5) tables and a patio bar that is accessed from inside the building. The outside area will be properly enclosed with a fence and will seat forty (40) persons and the 15% green space requirement will be maintained.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD NAY
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY NAY
THE MOTION BEING FIVE (5) IN FAVOR AND TWO (2) AGAINST, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
4. 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 ten-lot subdivision.
This case was postponed by the petitioner due to illness.
5. P.B. File #18-04, Beverly Hammersmith, 6243 Benning Road, Zoned A-1 Special Exception Use. Requesting Planning Board approval of the construction of a +/- 4992 sq.ft. freestanding stable.
APPEARANCE: Ms. Beverly Hammersmith, property owner
Ms. Hammersmith presented photographs and a survey of her property to the members and explained her proposed plan to have a “Morton“ building located on the southerly side of her driveway, in
line with the existing barn. She explained that the reason for locating the building here is aesthetics and the fact that the utilities are located here. She noted that all setback requirements would be met.
Mr. Bernard questioned what the building setback requirement is for a barn. Supervising Building Inspector Andrew Geist and Attorney Michael Wolf established that the building setback can be 100’ if no manure is stored in the building.
Mr. Fabinsky asked Ms. Hammersmith what the frontage of her property is. Ms. Hammersmith explained that it is 505’ wide.
Mr. McGuire made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to AUTHORIZE a building permit for a +/- 4,992 sq. ft. freestanding
stable and APPROVE the site plan dated 4/22/04 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the Short EAF and a Negative Declaration shall be made.
2. The site plan is limited to those light fixtures indicated on the site plan.
3. No outside display or storage is permitted.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY UNAVAILABLE
MC GUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
6. P.B. File #22-03, Carl Schleelein, 3419 North Benzing Road, Zoned I-1. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a 3,000 sq.ft. pre-engineered building. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 10/15/03.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Tim Arlington, Apex Consulting
Mr. Carl Schleelein, applicant
Mr. Arlington noted that Mr. Schleelein has erected several buildings and additions at this site, since his original building was built in 1989. This is the final building to be constructed on the property. He stated that the proposed building would be used as a warehouse.
Mr. Bernard noted that a dumpster is not shown on the plans. Mr. Arlington explained that the existing dumpster on the site would be sufficient for all the tenants. He also told the members that there would be no additional lighting and that the correct light fixture would be installed on the front of the building as shown on the plan presented.
Mr. Murray asked for further clarification regarding the use of the proposed warehouse building. Mr. Schleelein explained that the prospective tenant is a heating and cooling contractor, who will store his materials, tools and truck inside the building. There will be no sales conducted from the building.
Mr. Bernard, made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, that the Town Board AUTHORIZE a building permit for a 3,000 square foot pre-engineered building and APPROVE the site plan received 5/3/04 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE