Minutes of the September 14, 2005 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: Sarah desJardins, Planning Coordinator
Andrew Geist, Building Inspector
Thomas Ostrander, Junior Engineer
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
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 August 10, 2005 Planning Board meeting was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Murray made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bodden to accept the minutes of the August 10, 2005 meeting.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
1. P.B. File #29-05, Anne Marie Romanello, 4095 North Buffalo Road, Zoned B-3. Requesting a Change in Use from retail use to a pottery/art studio for amateur painters. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 9/7/05.
APPEARANCE: Ms. Anne Marie Romanello, applicant
Mr. McGuire recused himself from this case because of a business relationship with the applicant.
Ms. Romanello explained to the Board that the proposed paint your own pottery studio would offer bisque pieces for customers to purchase and apply glazes. The pieces would be kiln-fired in the store and finished. She explained that this is similar to a ceramic studio; however, there would be no lessons. “Paint your own pottery” parties will be offered for both adults and children. She does not anticipate more than thirty customers being present at one time. Most children will be dropped off and picked up. The business would be closed on Tuesday and operate Monday through Friday from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on Saturday and Sunday would be open 12:00 p.m. to 5 p.m. She told the Board that seven (7) additional parking spaces have been created on Sunset Terrace and that she will be occupying approximately one third of the building.
The members discussed the number of parking spaces at the plaza. Mr. McGuire noted that additional parking is available at the back of the building during the hours that the applicant is proposing and is accessed by a paved driveway. Ms. Romanello stated that she will have one to two employees and that she will instruct them to park at that location. It was noted that two tenants of the plaza have customers that drop-off and pick up and that their hours are not extended to what Ms. Romanello is proposing. Also, none of the businesses located here is open on Sunday and the pastry shop tenant is closed on Monday.
Mr. Murray established that there will be no retail sales separate from the “paint your own pottery”, this is not a franchise and that there will be no food offered. He asked the Building Inspector if the site conforms to the parking requirement. Building Inspector Geist noted that he feels that the use of the building is primarily public assembly, with the hint of retail, in that they are buying a product. If the requirement is based on the code for public assembly one parking space is needed for every 3 seats; 10 parking spaces are required. If considered a retail establishment, the parking space requirement would be based on square footage; 19 parking spaces are required. He further stated that this is an established plaza with parking spaces that may not have ever conformed to the parking requirements. He feels that based on the past usage of the building, Ms. Romanello’s request will not
create a parking problem.
Mr. Bernard inquired about the interior layout of Ms. Romanello’s operation. She told the Board that she did not have a sketch plan available, but that there would be tables/work stations set up that will not over crowd the room. One area will be sanctioned for the “party” room and it will hold approximately 10 persons.
The Chairman established that the owner of the property is not a tenant of the plaza. She concluded that parking will be a matter for the landlord and his tenants.
Mr. Bodden made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. McNamara to recommend that the Town Board APPROVE the requested Change in Use at 4095 North Buffalo Road from retail use to a pottery/art studio for amateur painters based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is a Type II SEQR Action and therefore no determination of significance is required.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Murray stated that he is trying to understand Building Inspector Geist’s position regarding if the petitioner is compliant relative to the parking ordinance. It was established that 27 parking spaces exist at the plaza and that this number does not include the parking spaces located at the rear of the building that Mr. McGuire referenced. Building Inspector Geist told the Board that based on the retail square footage he was unsure if the plaza had ever complied with the Town code. He surmised that at that the time the plaza was developed the requirement was different. He again noted that Ms. Romanello requires 10 parking spaces for her 1/3 section of the plaza, and that would leave 17 parking spaces remaining in the immediate plaza area.
Mr. Bernard asked if the motion should include the number of parking spaces. This was discussed and Mr. Bodden commented that the point was moot, as the plaza has existed with no parking space problems in the past.
Mr. Fabinsky commented on the building being vacant and stated that he feels this is a good use of the building. He believes there are no flagrant parking problems at the site.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MCGUIRE ABSTAINED
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
2. P.B. File #36-04, proposed Jim Ball Auto Center, Vacant land, northwest corner of Southwestern Boulevard and Mid-County Drive, Zoned B-2 Special Exception Use. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a new auto center facility, including a 12,000 sq.ft. car wash, service and accessory sales building and a 16,855 sq.ft. auto dealership building. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 3/2/05. Tabled by the Planning Board on 8/10/05.
Mr. John Ciminelli, Ciminelli Development
Mr. McGuire recused himself from voting in this case because of a business relationship with the applicant.
The Chairman confirmed with Mr. Ball that the site plan presented includes the building on Mid County Drive that is presently for sale. She asked Mr. Ball to explain to the Board why it is for sale and at the same time shown as a part of the proposed project. Mr. Ball told the Board that he intends to build the project in stages; however, the Board had requested that he present the entire project. Mr. Ball noted that the Mid County portion is the last piece that would be developed. He indicated on the site plan where three new car dealerships could be located. If someone were to buy the building, which is situated on the north end of the property, it would not affect his
plans. He could reduce the site to have two new car dealerships. Currently, there are no offers to purchase the property.
The Chairman told Mr. Ball that the Engineering department conveyed to the Board that if the Mid County property were sold before the Board grants approval, then revised plans would have to be submitted to Engineering for review and re-approval. Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander explained that two separate drainage sheds would need to be created if the parcel is sold. Mr. Ball stated that he feels that if just the building on Mid County were sold nothing else would have to be done other than eliminating the building from the plan. He pointed out that the school district had expressed an interest in the property, but it is his understanding that they will not act on their quest for a bus storage facility for years to come. He does not want to hold back on having new car franchises that may be offered to him. Presently, he has one new car franchise that he has committed to. If offers to have others are made to him he would consider them. He told the Board that if the presented plan is approved, he will build right away. If someone desires to purchase additional land he believes they will have to deal with the drainage issues.
Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander noted that this goes hand-in-hand with getting the private drainage easement for the outflow, which the Engineering department has yet to receive.
The Chairman reconfirmed that Mr. Ball is requesting that the Board approve the plan as presented and that he understands that this is the plan that he must use when applying for a building permit.
Mr. Ciminelli told the members that it has been a tedious task dealing with the many entities that are associated within “Ciminelli” and the related properties at the site. This has caused the delay in presenting the final easement required by the Engineering department. Attorney Michael Wolf confirmed that he has received a copy of an easement that has been processed and examined, and that the private easement between Mr. Ball and Mr. Ciminelli is to be finalized soon.
Mr. Murray noted that the applicant spoke very eloquently in describing and acknowledging this as a single project. Is it a single project in that it will be developed based on business opportunities? Mr. Ball noted that from the beginning the entire
project was to be in phases. Mr. Murray asked how many phases were there being considered. Mr. Mussachio noted that they are requesting approval of the entire project and that more
than one building permit may be issued from the Building department, but that they are seeking one approval from the Planning Board, noting that they may have to come back before the Board. Mr. Murray again asked if the construction will be in phases. Mr. Ball responded, “possibly…” Mr. Murray stated that since Mr. Ball’s response was vague he would ask quite simply how many phases does Mr. Ball anticipate for this site? Mr. Ball explained that the project would be accomplished in several phases of development and he indicated locations on the site plan for 3 possible phases of development that could occur. The plan has been based on the Board’s direction for him to indicate his plan for the entire property. He also noted that the Board previously told him that he must return before them and obtain approval for each building that he may wish to construct. The plans presented this evening are in consideration of future building.
Mr. Murray asked what the Board could expect with regards to the buffering of this project. Mr. Ball noted that there are obviously residential concerns and that these have been addressed at Conservation Board meetings. Mr. Murray stated that he was aware of previous discussions and the Conservation Board meetings that took place. However, the point is that there are still current questions existing for the residential property owners that border the site. Mr. Ball stated that he thought all questions had been addressed and that he is not aware of any remaining.
The Chairman noted that the Conservation Board has requested that Mr. Ball erect a fence in order to buffer the area residents. The Town ordinance does not allow fences higher than 6 ft. and the Conservation Board would like Mr. Ball to apply for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for an 8 ft. high fence. Mr. Ball commented that he finds the idea of a fence to be “ugly” and he is embarrassed to install the requested fence. Mr. McNamara pointed out to Mr. Ball that the neighbors bordering the site have requested the 8 ft. high stockade fence be installed. The Chairman noted that the Board cannot demand that he go to the Zoning Board of Appeals; that has to be his decision. She asked Mr. Ball what type of fencing he would be willing to install. Mr. Ball stated that he would install whatever he is told to install.
Mr. Mussachio discussed the conservation easement area and told the Board that they would not disturb or touch that area. The Chairman verified that the fence will be on Mr. Ball’s property and not in the easement or the neighbor’s property.
Mr. McNamara discussed a letter the members had received from Mr. & Mrs. Waite of Auckland Avenue. He noted that they are looking for assurance that there be no construction access from Auckland Avenue, as apparently there already has been with trucks that knocked down trees to perform test borings. He asked the applicant to comment on this. Mr. Mussachio noted that this occurred approximately 4 months ago. He stated that they would not use Auckland Avenue any further; the area is dense with vegetation and it is not something that they would do. Mr. Ball noted that he had not known that the test borings had occurred with access through Auckland Avenue. Mr. McNamara stated “you are telling us tonight that there will be no construction vehicles or other”… Mr. Ball stated, “The vehicles will come off of Southwestern or Mid County”. The Chairman noted, “So there is no use of Auckland Avenue at all?” Mr. Ball stated, “That is correct, none”. “No unloading on Mid County Drive?” You are going to pull your car trailers onto your own property and unload them?” Mr. Ball responded “Yes, in an unloading zone.” The Chairman verified that the parcel is one single parcel and not two parcels.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that he does not have a problem with the use of the land for an automobile dealership. However, he has deep concerns that the residents are protected from bright lights, noise and be able to enjoy their homes. He does not want the project to be disruptive or obtrusive to the neighbors and asked the applicants how they will prevent this from happening. Mr. Mussachio told the Board that the natural buffer will be retained. Light levels will be zero into the site. He explained that sound levels were measured on Auckland Avenue and the existing Jim Ball site on Southwestern Boulevard. It was found that the sound levels were higher on Auckland Avenue than what exists at the present Jim Ball site.
The Planning Coordinator explained that the first 50 feet will be the existing vegetation in the conservation easement, then the fence, then a driveway. Mr. Fabinsky noted that he observed the natural buffering to be thin in some areas and this worries him. Mr. Mussachio stated that they had the same concerns and that plans had been submitted to the Conservation Board proposing additional plantings to be installed. They denied the proposal. The Planning Coordinator noted that was due to the Conservation Board’s belief that the applicant might create a disturbance of the existing vegetation. Mr. Ball vehemently noted that he preferred double trees or trees installed every inch than to look at what he feels is an ugly fence.
Mr. Fabinsky discussed the buffering plan further with regards to the fence. The Chairman noted that the height of the fence was never required by the Conservation Board to be 8 feet and that the neighbors had requested it be 8 ft. The Conservation Board approved a 6 ft. fence and determined that the petitioner should petition the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to erect an 8 ft. fence. The Planning Coordinator asked if the Planning Board could demand that Mr. Ball apply for the variance. Attorney Michael Wolf commented that he does not believe they can.
Mr. Fabinsky asked what would be located immediately adjacent to the Jim Ball side of the fence. Mr. Mussachio told the Board that the 24’ roadway (drive) will be located fairly close to the fence, which will be installed just off the property line. Mr. Mussachio discussed the islands that are planned to be “green”, noting that the photometrics show zero light going off the site. Mr. Fabinsky asked how close the nearest parked car would be to the rear lot line of the residential homes. Mr. Mussachio indicated on the site map where cars would be parked with a distance of 80 ft. or 150 ft. An additional concern that Mr. Fabinsky has is that once approval is given things may change. He gave an example of curb cuts that had been put in for a driveway entrance on Mr. Ball’s Southwestern Boulevard property that had not been approved. “How do we know that what we see here is what we will get?” Mr. Ball quipped, “Fine me a million dollars if I put a driveway in there”. Mr. Ciminelli stated that an “as built survey” will be done after completion to make sure that it has been constructed in compliance with the approved plan. “If it is not, I am sure we will apply for a variance or be brought into compliance”. Mr. Fabinsky asked if the applicant will guarantee this. Mr. Ciminelli noted that he did not believe that Mr. Ball will be given a certificate of occupancy unless he is in compliance.
Mr. Ball noted that by having the existing dealership on Southwestern Boulevard, he has learned that major concerns are garbage and truck deliveries. He told the Board that the General Motors deliveries are at all different hours of the day and night. This is why he has “made provisions in the very far…, right next to the commercial property that is down there. All the trucks will come in there, all the dumping of the garbage, all that stuff is coming in that farther end”.
Mr. Bodden asked if the building is for sale were sold, would the location of vehicle deliveries be affected. The applicant stated, “No, it would not”.
Mr. Bernard noted that the project is engineered as one parcel, which will be constructed in various phases. The first phase includes the two buildings in the front; pavement will be back to what Mr. Bernard calls the “ring row”; the detention is being installed on Mid County. The future phase, which will include additional paving at the back, will occur at a future time. In addition, a future dealership may be built, so a building and more paving may be installed at the back. Mr. Ball stated “Correct”.
Mr. Bodden asked if there is going to be one person responsible for the work site and if that person “will guarantee that any part of the construction will not impinge on the neighbors? If there is a complaint, for instance, if someone covertly uses Auckland Avenue and performs more soil borings, who would the Building Inspector go to and correct that situation?” Mr. Mussachio stated that there will be someone in charge of supervising the project, either a general contractor or construction manager. The Chairman asks that when this decision is made the name of the individual be given to the Building Inspector. Mr. Ball noted that Mr. Ciminelli is going to oversee this project. Mr. Ciminelli told the Board that certain rules and regulations will be put into contracts. He cannot control the public utilities. However, Auckland Avenue will not become the primary route of construction trucks. Mr. Bodden asked if “the unloading area is going to stay on Mid County Drive and not be changed during different phases during the construction, correct?” Mr. Ball noted, “It’s not going to change the unloading area”.
The Chairman discussed with Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander if the project is far from receiving engineering approval. He told the Board that he is awaiting the final easement and that upon receiving this, he will look at the plan. He does not believe that there is a reason for the plan not to receive engineering approval and he discussed the private easement situation further with the Board, concluding that engineering does not have a problem if the Board would like to proceed tonight.
The Chairman asked if the Board members would be willing to vote on this case, based on the fact that it would not be placed on the Town Board’s agenda until after engineering approval is granted. Engineering approval will be granted upon receiving documentation of the private easement between Mr. Ciminelli and Mr. Ball. In addition, a copy will be sent to attorney Michael Wolf. Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander told the Board that the Engineering Department does not have a
problem with the Board making its recommendation to the Town Board, pending the Engineering Department’s approval.
Mr. McNamara made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to recommend that the Town Board AUTHORIZE a Building Permit for a new auto center facility, including a 12,000 sq.ft. car wash, service and accessory sales building and a 16,855 sq.ft. auto dealership building and APPROVE the site plan received 8/10/05 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action and a Negative Declaration is recommend based on the submitted Long EAF, Parts One and Two.
2. The site lighting is limited to those fixtures and poles indicated on the approved site plan. Light fixtures shall have flat lens.
3. No outside storage or display is permitted other than automobile inventory.
4. Dumpsters as shown shall be screened, along with any additional dumpsters, in accordance with Section 144-25 of the Town Code.
5. A Landscape Completion Bond in accordance with Conservation Board minutes shall be provided for the approved landscape plan prior to the receipt of a Building Permit.
6. A six-foot high solid fence shall be installed on Jim Ball’s property adjacent to the land to be placed in a conservation easement (east of the residences on Auckland Avenue) and shall be permanently maintained by the petitioner.
7. There shall be no disturbance of any kind inside the conservation easement area during or after construction.
8. Town Engineering Approval has not been granted.
9. Our motion is contingent upon Town Engineering approval of the site plan after they receive and review documentation of the easement between Mr. Ciminelli and Mr. Ball.
10. Engineering approval must be granted before this case will be allowed to appear on a Town Board agenda.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Bernard asked for the site plan to be updated and he would like consolidation of the final lighting plan made available.
Mr. Bodden asked Mr. Ball if he will make a good faith effort and go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and request a variance for an 8 ft. high fence. Mr. Ball stated, “No. I still cannot believe that anybody from Orchard Park would want this. I will come up with something better for over there; something better, to look nice and make everyone happy. I do not think it will ever be an eight foot tall or nine foot, unless it’s green and trees. I know it is out of character, but I would like to go and talk to everybody over there. This is ugly for them… It is ugly for Orchard Park. That is a sin to put that in there. If I have to, I will. But I am going to try and do something that makes everybody happy”. Mr. Bodden noted that there are various fences that can accent the area in a creative way. Mr. Ball concluded that he will do what he can to please the neighbors in that area and that if he has to put the fence in, he will.
Mr. Fabinsky noted that we do not have updated plans or engineering approval. There seem to be loose ends. He believes the neighborhood issues are important. The Chairman stated “If we are going with the Conservation Board and that is what we are doing, we are asking for a 6 foot fence. If Mr. Ball decides that maybe he can do something a lot better for the neighbors, well then… At least right now the way it is, is a 6 foot fence. The only other question that we have is the easement, that is all I can see.” Mr. Fabinsky noted that as a member of the Board he will have to vote based on how comfortable he is with regards to the neighbors.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD NAY
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY NAY
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MCGUIRE ABSTAINED
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY NAY
THE MOTION BEING FOUR (4) IN FAVOR AND THREE (3) AGAINST, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
3. P.B. File #21-05, Towne Automotive Group, 3525 Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2. Requesting approval of a previously approved site plan for an inventory parking lot to be located on +/- 6 acres of vacant land south of Towne Auto Choice. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 7/6/05.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Bill Wincott, Chamberlain Corporation
Mr. Wincott explained that in 1998 the Town Board approved a site plan for an inventory parking lot. The plan presented to the Board has been modified slightly in order to meet the current drainage and landscaping requirements. The perimeter of the lot has not changed. Parking spaces have been reduced from what was approved at that time to accommodate the current requirements. He told the Board that a permit issued in 1998 is still valid for mitigation of the wetlands located on the site. A 50’ buffer will now extend further into the development, in consideration of the neighbors on Milestrip. Previously, it was to extend 300 feet. The existing heavy wooded area will not be disturbed. The lighting plan presented is strictly for security and not for display; it is low lighting. The project has engineering approval.
Mr. Fabinsky asked how the project differs from the original. Mr. Wincott explained that the drainage in 1998 was based on a 25 year storm event. Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander explained that it is now based on a much larger storm retention facility based on the D.E.C. Phase II requirement, which is for a 100 year event. Current green space requirements have also increased, causing the loss of parking spaces. Originally they had approximately 594 parking spaces. They now have 418 parking spaces.
Mr. Bernard noted that the lighting plan has increased by almost 50% over what had been approved in 1998. He discussed reducing the lighting and Mr. Wincott agreed to install 24 fixtures with 400 watt flat lens.
Mr. Bodden asked if the reduction will compromise security. Mr. Wincott told the Board that he did not believe it would.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to RECOMMEND that the Town Board AUTHORIZE a Building Permit for a previously approved inventory parking lot behind Towne Auto Choice, 3525 Southwestern Boulevard and Approve the site plan received 9/14/05 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
4. 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 from B-3 to B-2 in order to construct two multi-tenant buildings. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 11/5/03. Tabled by the Planning Board on 1/14/04.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Eric Recoon, Benderson Development
Mr. Recoon explained that this project had been presented to the Board previously. However, it has been revised reflecting input from the Town and the residents of the area. The petitioner is now proposing a two story shopping center with two buildings. The previous plan had proposed a third building; this was eliminated making it unnecessary to request rezoning of the rear portion of the property from residential to business. He presented elevations for the Board’s review noting the request for rezoning is to have restaurants located here. He pointed out to the members that the buildings have been designed to be architecturally attractive on all sides and explained that the project has been designed to be an upscale friendly environment. The existing trees will not be disturbed and additional plantings will be installed.
The members discussed the parking and access into the buildings with Mr. Recoon. Mr. Recoon noted that parking will
be on both sides of the north building and that the store fronts face in and are pedestrian friendly, with parking in the middle for both buildings. He further established that sidewalks surround the north building with additional parking at the back.
Mr. Bodden established that the rendering before the Board is for the north building and that the south building is virtually the same. They are trying to create a “village atmosphere” where everyone has their own store front with the appeal of multiple buildings, when obviously it is one structure.
The Chairman asked if Mr. Recoon could provide information on tenants for the proposed site. Mr. Recoon noted that he presently has lease commitments with Talbot’s, Coldwater Creek and Chico’s. Chairman Biryla established that there will be a total of 35,000 sq. ft. of space available in the proposed complex with 7,500 sq. ft. of space available for 1 or 2 restaurants. Mr. Recoon told the Board that the restaurant(s) will not be a fast food chain, quick service or a drive thru. Mr. Recoon noted that a coffee, ice cream shop, or perhaps an “Atlanta Bread” type store were possible tenants; even something similar to the new “Mangia’s” would be welcomed. The three committed tenants and 1 additional tenant that he can not divulge the identity of will fill the south building. He told the Board that the build out of the plaza will be in one phase.
Mr. Bernard pointed out that possible design errors with the square footage of the building verses the number of required parking spaces may occur. He noted that Mr. Recoon is looking to rezone from B3 to B2, which allows some square footage of one or both of the buildings to have food service. You may be limited on how many square feet that could be and he asked if this is a problem. Mr. Recoon discussed this further and concluded that he will have to tweak the plans. If allowed to build it in this fashion and to the extent that it is close, a variance could be sought.
Mr. Fabinsky noted that this is close to the village. Eliminating the third building essentially dealt with the adverse impact that would have been created on the nearby residential area. He asked Mr. Recoon if Benderson would be willing to commit to having the residentially zoned area, with the exception of the parking that is there, remain forever green. Mr. Recoon stated that he could not comment on this at this time. Benderson recognizes that it is residential but will keep their options open
for the future. The current proposal involves no interference with that area.
Mr. Recoon stated that there are wetlands on the site and that mitigation will take place off site in the town of Orchard Park.
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Chairman Biryla to recommend that the Town Board APPROVE the requested rezoning from B-3 to B-2 in order to construct two retail/restaurant buildings based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Long EAF, Parts One and Two and a negative declaration is recommended.
2. Acreage fees shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-70C of the Town Code prior to publication of the Public Hearing Notice.
3. This recommendation is contingent upon the applicant completing the project as proposed on the preliminary development plans received on 9/6/05 and shall revert to its original zoning classification if the project is not completed per Section 144-67 of the Town Code.
4. There is to be no drive-thru restaurant service.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Bernard noted that he would like to make a strong recommendation to the Town Board that with the zoning across the street being B1, when rezoning from B3 to B2, which is for the minor use of the property, he would like this to be strictly adhered to.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
5. P.B. File #31-04, Benderson Development Co., Inc., 3165 Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a 7,560 sq.ft. restaurant/retail building. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 10/20/04. Tabled by the Planning Board on 5/11/05 and 6/8/05.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Eric Recoon, Benderson Development
The Chairman noted that Engineering approval had been granted on 5/18/05.
Mr. Recoon reviewed the project with the Board noting the following:
1. Engineering has signed off on the project.
2. A parking variance was obtained.
3. The Conservation Board approved the landscaping plan and a fence that must be installed.
4. The lighting plan has been reviewed and approved.
5. The architectural plan has been approved and signed off on by the Planning Board Chairman.
6. Changes have been made in conjunction with comments from the Planning Board regarding safety considerations with regard to handicapped parking around the building, with regard to the drive thru lane and the length of it and with regard to language of signage to direct customers to and from the site to improve the efficiency of the site.
Mr. Recoon stated, “The issue that remains is the loading and unloading aspects. This is a spec building and looking at the possible scenarios, we were asked by this Board to put together potential data. We cannot commit to putting in rear doors (doors along the service area side of the building). It is not possible to commit that every tenant will have a rear door along that service area. It simply is not viable for a building of this size”. Mr. Recoon explained further using a multi-colored building layout scenario.
Mr. Fabinsky discussed the maintenance of the sidewalks, with snow removal. Mr. Recoon told the Board that the tenants are responsible for snow removal. Mr. Fabinsky stated that he feels that they are now “un-negotiating” what they have tried to establish for the project. “If there is no rear
entrance on this, you are absolutely not getting my vote”. The Chairman noted that she does not agree with Mr. Fabinsky.
She discussed her feelings and concluded that Benderson has been cooperative, noting that the building is only 7,500 sq. ft. in size. Mr. Fabinsky stated that he would like assurance from Benderson that people will not park at the front.
Mr. Recoon acknowledged that there is room for improvement and asked the Board not to judge Benderson on past projects. He went on to describe Town projects that they are presently involved in; “Super Duper Plaza” and “Jubilee Plaza”. Mr. Recoon described to the Board that having rear doors is a problem, being that there is not enough room for corridors to be safely shared. He also told the Board that the New York State fire code regulations do not require rear doors for a building of this size.
Mr. McNamara established that there would be no more than four tenants located here. Mr. Recoon indicated on the building layout scenario how the project would operate with access doors and customers. He explained scenarios “A” through “D” on his building layout to the members. In scenario “A” through “C”, 2 tenants exist; in scenario “D”, 3 tenants exist.
Mr. Murray discussed with Mr. Recoon whether or not Star Bucks is a secured tenant. Mr. Recoon told the Board that they have not signed a lease.
Mr. Bernard established with Mr. Recoon that there will be one (1) restaurant with a service drive-thru; Mr. Recoon told the Board that there will never be two drive-thrus. Mr. Bernard asked if scenario “C” can be eliminated. Mr. Recoon noted that it cannot be eliminated. Mr. Bernard asked if “C” is chosen if there is a mechanism to clearly identify the loading zone on the side of the building and to have (in front of what appears on the building layout as a green and red corner) labeled “no unloading”. Mr. Bernard further described the signage that he would want at the site to direct deliveries and the public. Mr. Fabinsky found this to be positive. Mr. Recoon stated that the pavement could be used in addition to signage to identify “not a delivery area” or “not a service area”.
Mr. Fabinsky discussed the garbage that exists from tenants of the plaza (Moe’s and Wendy’s). Building Inspector Andrew Geist is instructed to contact the landlord, DDR, regarding
this situation. Also, Mr. Geist verified with Mr. Recoon that Benderson will install the agreed upon 380’ stockade fence.
Mr. Bodden made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. McNamara, to recommend that the Town Board authorize a Building Permit for a 7,560 sq.ft. restaurant/retail building and Approve the site plan received 6/24/05 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Long EAF and a Negative Declaration is recommended.
2. The site lighting is limited to those fixtures and poles indicated on the approved site plan. Light fixtures shall have flat lens.
3. No outside storage or display is permitted.
4. Dumpsters as shown shall be screened, along with any additional dumpsters, in accordance with Section 144-25 of the Town Code.
5. A Landscape Completion Bond in accordance with Conservation Board minutes shall be provided for the approved landscape plan prior to the receipt of a Building Permit.
6. Town Engineering Approval has been granted on 5/18/05.