Minutes of the November 8, 2006 meeting of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, S4295 South Buffalo Street, Erie County
MEMBERS PRESENT: William McNamara, Chairman
John Bernard Paul Bodden
Michael McGuire
Philip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
EXCUSED: Lorraine Biryla
Harold Fabinsky
OTHERS PRESENT: Remy C. Orffeo, 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 October 11, 2006 Planning Board meeting was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to accept the minutes of the October 11, 2006 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. P.B. File #37-06, Doodle Bugs Day Care, Vacant Land Redtail Drive, Zoned I-1. Requesting a Building Permit for a proposed 11,300 sq. ft. day care center. Applicant was granted a Use Variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals on 3/21/06. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 6/7/06.
APPEARANCE: Michael Terranova, Lauer Manguso
Andrew Terragnoli, Lauer Manguso
Board Member Michael McGuire recused himself from voting in this case.
Mr. Terranova noted that all outstanding Site Plan issues have been resolved with the project. He presented a color rendering of the building and explained to the Board that the brick used on the outside of the building will be a deep red color. He further explained that textured black shingles will be used on the roof. The owner, Mr. Insinna, will be choosing color selections next week. He further noted that the colors on the computer generated rendering are not true.
The Chairman told the applicants that if the project is recommend to the Town Board, he would like the applicant to provide samples of the colors to be used to the Town Board members for their review. He also discussed the proposed fence with the applicants and established that the fence will be three (3) feet in height and be the style presented to the Board.
Mr. Bernard told the applicants that the over-all site lighting is acceptable and questioned if there is any building lighting. Mr. Terranova told the Board that there will be no wall pacs and no off lighting on the building. Mr. Bernard discussed the proposed parking with Mr. Terranova. Mr. Terranova told the Board that based on the three (3) existing “Doodle Bug” sites, Mr. Insinna is confident that the proposed parking is adequate. The parking is basically for the employees, as the children are dropped-off and picked-up in a designated area. The proposed parking based on the Town requirement is 37 parking spaces. Mr. Terragnoli told the Board that the site will have a total of 42 parking spaces.
The Chairman discussed the New York State mandate regarding the number of employees that must be present in a day-care-center based on the attendance of age groups. He noted that younger children require additional employees present. He questions if the parking will be adequate if more employees are needed and he told the applicants to be prepared to discuss this with the Town Board.
Mr. Murray established that the site is ADA compliant. He further confirmed that the colors to be used are very close to the presented architectural rendering and that Engineering Approval was granted today.
Mr. Bodden made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard to recommend that the Town Board AUTHORIZE a Building Permit for an 11,300 sq. ft. day care center and APPROVE the site plan received 11/01/06, 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. 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. Town Engineering Approval was granted on 11/8/06.
6. A landscape completion bond in accordance with the Conservation Board minutes shall be provided for the approved landscape plan, which includes 62% green space and 12% interior green space, prior to the receipt of a Building Permit.
7. The perimeter fence maximum height will be three (3) feet in accordance with the Town Code.
8. Siding and brick colors will be subject to the approval of the Town Board.
9. Applicant was granted a Use Variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals on 3/21/06.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
MCGUIRE ABSTAINED
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. P.B. File #53-06 Polymer Conversions, Jack Bertsch of Polymer Conversions, 5758 Big Tree Road, located on the north side of Big Tree Road, Zoned I-1. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 3/1/06. Planning Board to review request for a Change in Use to convert existing residence to office space.
APPEARANCE: No one was present
The Chairman stated that this case is tabled due to no representation.
3. P.B. File #31-06, Bennett, Two-Lot Subdivision, 7.55 acres of vacant land, east of 5635 Armor Duells Road, Zoned R-2. Applicant is seeking Planning Board preliminary approval.
APPEARANCE: Mr. David Johnson, Nussbaumer & Clarke
The Board’s questions established that wetland areas exist on this site; however, all required approvals and permits have been applied for. Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander confirmed that 3.2-acres on the site is Federal wetlands. Only an .09-acres disturbance will occur to the wetland areas when the driveways are put in. It was also confirmed that the sewer systems will be septic. Mr. Ostrander
told the Board that both the Engineering Department and the Highway Superintendent have signed-off on the preliminary plat plan.
The Planning Coordinator told the Board that when the project was initially proposed, all fees were paid in 1996. He further stated that he conferred with Attorney Michael Wolf regarding the length of time that has passed and he indicated that no additional monies are due the Town of Orchard Park.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bodden to AUTHORIZE the Chairman to schedule a public hearing at the discretion of the Chair and the Planning Coordinator.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
4. Pleasant Acres West P.B. File #40-94, proposed Pleasant Acres West Subdivision, Vacant land, north side of New Taylor Road, Zoned R-2 and R- 3. Review of map cover and lot changes. Verification of Preliminary Approval.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Elliot Lasky, Developer
Mr. Rob Pidanick, GPI
Mr. Pidanick stated that the Planning Board granted Preliminary Plat Plan approval on 8/02/06. Since that time, the Town Engineer requested that Mr. Lasky deed two lots to the Town to be used to create a thirty-foot access to the storm water detention area. Mr. Lasky told the Board that the presented plan has been amended; however, he proposes to deed two strips of land to the Town of Orchard Park to create the requested access. Mr. Lasky noted that he feels this serves the interests of the Town. He further stated that he would like the park land area to be deeded to the Town at the time of the filing of the map cover.
The Planning Coordinator discussed the legal papers that Mr. Lasky had his lawyer serve to the Town of Orchard Park Planning Board with regards to this project. Mr. Lasky explained the circumstances that occurred prompting him to take this legal action. He told the Board that he did not feel he should be directed to donate two lots, as this would have created further economic loss with this project. He further explained that discussions with Town Engineer Wayne Bieler took place and that an amicable agreement was reached as indicated with the amended proposal as recommended by Mr. Bieler; however, Mr. Lasky told the Board that he did not know that the legal action had gone forward and that the Town of Orchard Park Planning Board had been served legal documents. Mr. Lasky apologized for this oversight. Attorney Michael Wolf
stated that he spoke with Mr. Lasky’s attorney, Mr. Sullivan and he told Mr. Wolf that a letter will be sent to the Town of Orchard Park stating that the legal action is withdrawn.
Mr. McNamara established with Mr. Lasky that the parkland remains the same and that all building lots are conforming lots.
Mr. Bodden noted that Board Member Hal Fabinsky, who was not present, had expressed concerns during the recent Planning Board work session regarding agreements pertaining to the parkland area. He read a correspondence from former Highway Superintendent Ronald Geitter, dated June 4, 2004. In the last paragraph it reads, “I request that the developer be responsible for the paving and fencing of the walkway to the parkland between lots #52 and #53”. Mr. Lasky noted that this has been agreed to and is noted on the presented plan.
Mr. Bodden further read from Mr. Geitter’s correspondence, “This will help avoid problems with the homeowners, at a later date. “Fencing of the entire park needs to be addressed at a later date”. “Fencing of the entire park needs to be addressed prior to home construction and before the bordering properties use it as a dumping ground or claim it as their backyard”. Mr. Bodden asked Mr. Lasky if there will be a specific delineation between the property owners and the immediate surrounding area. Mr. Lasky stated that he feels that Mr. Geitter was making a recommendation that it be addressed; however, he does not feel it is his responsibility to install fencing around the perimeter of the parkland. He is open to incorporating restrictive covenants in the deeds, but noted that he cannot control what may occur at the site. In terms of a best case scenario Mr. Lasky feels that the Town of Orchard Park will have ample time to plan the use of the parkland before the total perimeter is established for access it will be two to three years before Phase II of the development will begin. Mr. Lasky stated that he will work with the Town of Orchard Park and be cooperative. The Planning Coordinator noted that this remains an unresolved issue.
Mr. Bodden made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. McGuire, to APPROVE the amended map cover received 11/1/06 as the proposed site plan of record. This 11/1/06 site plan supersedes the amended plan approved on June 9, 2004. Engineering Approval was granted on 11/1/06.
In addition, the following stipulations of the Conditional Preliminary Plat Plan Approval (8/2/06) remain in affect:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Full EAF Parts 1, 2 and 3 and a Negative declaration was issued on 6/13/01.
2. Public Hearing and Subdivision Development fees shall be paid.
3. Recreation area per Section 25-4 of the Town Code deeded prior to the
filing of the final map cover.
4. 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.
5. Town Engineering Preliminary Approval has been granted on 8/2/06.
6. To achieve Final Approval for this Subdivision, the developer must prepare, submit a petition and order the Map Plan and Report for OPDD 3-2 (Drainage District) for the maintenance of the proposed ponds and Associated drainage systems for this Subdivision.
7. Recommendations found in the Geo-tech report must be included in the final design of the site plan.
8. The previous agreement (listed below) reached on soil is a condition of this approval.
“Whereas; a Negative Declaration under SEQRA was made on this proposed subdivision on June 13, 2001, and
Whereas; approximately 20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of fill was subsequently delivered to the site of this proposed subdivision, some or all of which may have come from the Barrington Heights Subdivision, and;
Whereas; several recent lawsuits have raised environmental questions concerning the quality and metals content of the Barrington Heights soil and;
Whereas; review of this case was tabled at the March 8, 2006 meeting based on newly discovered information and change of circumstances; all pursuant to Section 617.7 of the SEQRA regulations; and
Whereas; after soil testing was completed by the petitioner and reviewed for the Orchard Park Planning Board by TVGA and exceedance of arsenic over the recommended soil cleanup level (RSCL) was found;
Now, therefore, I would move that the Orchard Park Planning Board take the following action:
1. Allow the stock piled soil to remain in place undisturbed during the initial development of Pleasant Acres West up to a period of 1 year and;
2. When NYSDEC draft 6NYCRR – Part 375 – Environment Remediation Program (dated November, 2005) is finalized the soil will either, (a) be removed if it continues to exceed the RSCL standard, or (b) if the soil is below the RSCL standard it will be utilized for fill on site.]
3. The Department of Health is to indicate that the level or arsenic here, at this point, poses no known human health problem.
4. Confirmation must be received from the D.E.C.”
9. The petitioner is to submit comments from the Department of Health on the levels of arsenic, as far as the current levels and whether that level poses a health hazard.
10. Stipulation #6 from, 8/2/06 Conditional Preliminary Plat Plan Approval “Sub Lots 30 and 94 are deeded to the Town for drainage maintenance” is voided.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY NAY
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION BEING FIVE (5) IN FAVOR AND ONE (1) AGAINST, THE MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED .
5. P.B. File #02-06, Tim Horton’s Restaurant, 3239 Abbott Road, Zoned B-2 & R-3. Requesting Planning Board approval of proposed signage. Planning Board recommended Town Board approve site plan and issue a building permit on 8/9/06.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Lou Terragnoli
Mr. Bob Bender
Mr. Terragnoli told the Board that the first Tim Horton’s store was founded in 1974; this location will be the chain’s 3,000th store. A December opening is planned. He presented the Board with information regarding the proposed signage, noting that the Planning Board previously had approved the menu, speaker board and pedestal signage. The Board’s questions established that there will be one entrance/exit sign; Mr. Bernard confirmed that the sign will not have advertising on it.
Mr. McGuire made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard to GRANT approval of five (5) identification signs based on the submitted plans received 11/8/06. The following conditions shall apply:
1. This is a Type II SEQR action and, therefore, no determination of significance is required.
2. Two (2) non-advertisement or logo signs are approved and permitted by Section 144-38H. Three (3) drive-thru, menu signs as follows:
1, Tim Horton’s preview sign, 2’-10 5/8” wide by 7’-6 3/8” high, model THPR.
1, Tim Horton’s menu sign, 59-1/8” wide x 80-7/8” high with an over all Height of 98-3/8”, model THOM.
1, Tim Horton’s speaker sign, 1’-10 ˝” wide by 3’-4” high, model THSP.
3. Two (2) non-advertisement signs shall be per the measurements per Custom Sign Center, Inc. drawings, model THDD.
4. Only the drive-thru “thank you”, “do not enter” and “pick up window”, “Menu” and speaker signs are illuminated, with Tim Horton’s dusk to dawn.
5. The signs will be located per the approved location plan dated 11/08/06.
6. A permit fee shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-70A(1).
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. P.B. File 14-04, Pleasant Acres II, Concept review, petitioner requests that the Planning Board review as a separate project from Pleasant Aces West, 4 sub-lots at northwest corner of existing Pleasant Acres II subdivision (Burbank Drive).
Mr. Pidanick explained the presented plan proposes changes be made to the existing map cover; Mr. Lasky would like permission to have 4 sub-lots created on the northwest corner of the existing Pleasant Acres subdivision and to have a public street constructed that will connect the two subdivisions (the existing Pleasant Acres and the proposed Pleasant Acres West). He further told the Board that the concerns voiced by neighbors in the past regarding a proposed trail have been eliminated.
Mr. Bernard established that the project will be constructed in several phases. The initial phase of the overall project will begin on the west end of the site where lots 41 and 42 are located. The second phase will continue along Golden Crest Way and then back to New Taylor Road. Phase three will begin at what is designated as Tranquility L ane and this will provide the connection to Burbank Drive. The last phase to take place will be the cul-de-sac circle. Mr. Lasky confirmed that there are 12 lots to the south of the circle, if you include the two lots located on the corner of the proposed connection. However, Mr. Lasky stated that no building will occur on the two corner lots.
Mr. Bernard discussed the location of the turn-around area and questioned if there will be ample room for snow removal operations by the Town Highway
vehicles. Mr. Lasky noted that he owns the parcel adjacent to this area and he told the Board that he will create the proper area needed for snow removal in the turn-around. Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander commented that the turn-around must comply with the Town requirements regarding size. He further stated that Mr. Lasky will need to grant the Town of Orchard Park an easement to access the area he owns. Also, the turn-around should be located within the limits of Pleasant Acres II and the map cover must include the easement agreement. Mr. Lasky stated that he could grant a perpetual easement to the Town so his property can be used. Mr. Ostrander noted that this issue must be further discussed with the Town Engineer Wayne Bieler.
Mr. Pidanick noted that the applicant is appearing under “other business/concept review” and he confirmed that the Board cannot act on this project as it is not a regular business item. The Planning Coordinator stated that there are two ways to treat the request; the Town Engineer suggests that you treat the site separately and have the Planning Board accept pre-application findings, preliminary plat plan approval and then final plat plan approval; the other suggestions is that the applicant amend the map cover with the restrictions and guarantees that the Town of Orchard requested. He believes that the Town Engineer is leaning toward having the pre-application, preliminary and then final plat plan approval. Mr. Pidanick noted that if the project is amended only a copy will be need to be submitted to the County Health Department. Building Inspector Andrew Geist stated that if the project is not treated as being amended the lots will not be in compliance with the current health regulations with respect to water and sewer requirements. Mr. Ostrander noted that the applicant will also need to submit documentation to the County regarding the sewer extension and water; associated with this will be Engineering final approval.
Mr. Murray noticed that the letter of intent requests that the project be considered as a separate subdivision. He questions if the prior SEQRA documentation applies to the “new four-lot subdivision” and wonders how this will be reconciled. Mr. Lasky noted that he is simply asking for a map cover revision that changes the configuration that was submitted eight (8) years ago. Planning Coordinator Orffeo noted that Mr. Pidanick left a phone message requesting that the Board review the amended map cover as a “separate project”.
The Chairman noted that the he would like to see the project after the Health Department has issued their approvals. Mr. Pidanick told the Board that although the project is amended, the Town Engineer will still need to grant final approval for this project.
Mr. Bodden established that the project was amended to create access to the neighborhood.
2. P.B. File #28-06, McDonald USA, LLC, 3232 Orchard Park Road, NYS Routes 240 & 277, Zoned B2. Concept review to redevelop existing site with a new building, pavement, utilities, lighting and landscaping. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 4/19/06. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for Front Yard Parking on 6/20/06.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Randy Beabout, FRA Engineer
Mr. Scott Francis, Construction Manger – McDonald’s USA
Mr. Bebout presented plans for the Board to review and explained to the Board that they are proposing to demolish the existing building and upgrade the site. It was established that the building will be located further back and that it will be is slightly larger, with two ordering points that will lead to one pick up window. They propose to have a total of 45-parking spaces, which is less than what presently exists at the site. Mr. Bebout stated he believes thirty-seven parking spaces are required by the ordinance. He further stated that the Conservation Board approved the landscaping plan for this site at their 11/7/06 meeting and recommended that the applicants reduce the number of parking spaces to meet the 10% green space requirement.
Mr. Bebout told the Board that the grade at the site will be lowered 2-1/2 feet. Also, there will be no basement constructed. Mr. Bebout explained that the site is designed to be pedestrian friendly. He told the Board that an outdoor patio area will be located at the front and that, at this point in time, there will be no play area. Mr. Bernard questioned if the proposed parking will be adequate, with regards to having either an outdoor patio or a play area. Mr. Bebout stated that they have considered the future parking requirements.
Several Board members expressed concerns regarding the design of the building. Planning Coordinator Remy Orffeo stated that a meeting will be scheduled between the applicants and Councilwoman Ackerman to discuss the proposed building. Mr. Bodden noted that the presented façade is not consistent with the desired architecture in the Town of Orchard Park.
The Chairman told the applicants that the dumpster enclosure must be clarified on the plan. Mr. Bebout discussed the dumpster and told the Board that the enclosure will match the building.
Other comments;
Mr. McGuire discussed lighting requirements for the proposed site. It was established that the Engineering Department received a lighting plan and that the Planning Department had not. Mr. Bebout was asked by the Planning Coordinator to send the Planning Office the appropriate number of copies needed.
Building Inspector Andrew Geist questioned the number of employees that will work here and if the number of parking spaces will meet the requirement. Mr. Ostrander noted that the Conservation Board requested the reduction in the number of parking spaces and that the applicants have been working in good faith. Mr. Bernard stated that the Conservation Board may have direction but that they have no authority over this; they can only make a recommendation. The Planning Coordinator stated that they can make a recommendation, just as the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board. The previous drawing shows 65-parking spaces. Mr. Ostrander noted that the applicants have been moving forward on this project given that direction from the Conservation Board.
3. BOARD MEMBER COMMENT:
Phillip Murray stated that there is an outstanding matter from last month regarding Quaker Crossing east relative to pedestrian accessibility. He noted that Mr. Walsh stated that he has correspondence (sign-off’s and approvals) indicating that the site meets the requirements for pedestrian accessibility. The Planning Coordinator sent a correspondence on 10/20/06 to obtain copies of these correspondences; however, as of this date there has been no response received. Mr. Murray asks that another correspondence be sent to follow-up on this matter. Mr. Orffeo stated that he will do so. Mr. Ostrander noted that there
was a photo copy of an e-mail that discussed this matter.
Michael McGuire stated that Top’s is not maintaining the outside display area as they had agreed to. He would like the Building Inspector to review the site.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
DATED: December 6, 2006 Respectfully Submitted,
REVIEWED: December 7, 2006 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
William McNamara,
Planning Board Chairman