Minutes of the April 11 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
Harold Fabinsky
Eugene Majchrzak
Philip Murray
OTHERS PRESENT: Remy C. Orffeo, Planning Coordinator
Thomas Ostrander, Junior Engineer
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Andrew Geist, Building Inspector
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 March 14, 2007 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 March 14, 2007 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Planning Coordinator Remy C. Orffeo noted that a correspondence was received from Board member Michael McGuire stating that resigned from the Board effective April 1, 2007.
1. P.B. File #05-06, Reed’s Jewelry Store (Sachel Development), south east corner of Milestrip Road and Abbott Road, Zoned B-2. Planning Board granted approval on 7/5/06 to submitted plan dated 6/23/06. Board to review traffic study and request for a site plan revision to allow a second site curb cut located on Milestrip Road.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Jeffrey Zimmer, owner Reed’s Jewelry Store
Mr. Jeff Palumbo, Attorney
Robert Miller, Project Manager – Nussbaumer & Clarke
Michael Sendor, President – Nussbaumer & Clarke
Mr. Palumbo stated that he is requesting permission from the Board to approve the use of a second site curb cut located on Milestrip Road. He noted that a detailed traffic study was submitted to the Board and that the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has conditionally approved a permit to use the Milestrip Road curb cut based on the applicant completing work on the curb cut as specified by the Town of Orchard Park and the NYSDOT. He further noted that the applicant seeks to limit the use of the Milestrip Road access by allowing a “right-turn only” into and out of the site.
Mr. Palumbo told the Board that firstly, the Reed’s Store is a “stand-alone” facility that will not generate a high volume of traffic. Therefore, the applicant feels traffic generated from the store will not have a negative impact on the level of service at the Abbott/Milestrip intersection. Secondly, the study concludes that it will be safer to have a second access to the site. He noted that the applicant did not want to appear to be presumptuous, so work was held off at the site.; upon receiving permission from the Town of Orchard Park, to “open-up” the access onto Milestrip, the work will be completed as directed by the NYSDOT.
The members discussed their concerns for traffic safety at great length. The following is a summary of what was discussed;
• Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander told the Board that he had spoken to Mr. Brian Skok, Assistant Resident Engineer with NYSDOT, regarding this project who told him that the certificate of occupancy is to be withheld until the entrance is completed per the plan. The traffic report submitted by the applicant is acceptable to the Engineering Department. Mr. Skok told him that the NYSDOT cannot disallow the access on Milestrip Road if the work is completed as requested.
Mr. Ostrander noted that he spoke with Building Inspector Geist regarding this matter; a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the entrance is widened and the guide rail and signage are moved to meet the NYSDOT permit plan.
• The Board members feel that deterrents such as the island area and signage stating “no left hand turn” will not preclude a motorist from accessing the site. They discussed two similar traffic situations; “Wal-Mart” located on Route 20A and “Star Bucks” located further down Milestrip Road. The Board would like a left hand turn in or out of the site made less appealing to a motorist. They discussed flaring out the island area to deter vehicles from doing this. Mr. Bodden cautioned using sharp corners on the island area as tire damage can occur when a motorist travels over it. The Board requests the applicant contact the NYSDOT for additional options and ideas to improve safety at the Milestrip Road access.
• It was established that the number of vehicle trips generated in and out during the peak hour of 5 to 6 P.M. will be approximately 18; split with two driveways this will be approximately 9 vehicles per driveway. Mr. Sendor noted that the NYSDOT are experts; he believes that at its peak, 18-vehicles per hour, is minor in nature. He, again, told the Board that it will be safer to have two accesses at the site.
The members discussed scenarios of travel and accessing the site in depth. Mr. Bernard established that a driveway on the adjacent Abbott Road property is not available for use to the site.
• Cumulative impact of traffic was discussed; Mr. Murray questions if the traffic study, under SEQRA regulations, addresses the cumulative impact of traffic. The report did not (that he could find) discuss a town-wide or sector-wide analysis of the cumulative impact of traffic; he believes reviewing this information will provide a broader likelihood of knowing whether or not the project will, or will not, have an impact on the existing traffic patterns that Orchard Park has in place. He asked Mr. Palumbo to speak on cumulative impact and Mr. Palumbo noted that he feels the traffic study covered what the board requested; the report considered projects that have recently taken place in the area, in addition to background development. He feels the study was a sector study and not a town-wide study. He noted that the report talks about “Quaker Crossing South”; however, Planning Coordinator Orffeo pointed out that in the addendum, prepared by Mr. Michael Borowiak of Nussbaumer & Clarke, it is noted that “Quaker Crossing South” was not included in the study. Mr. Orffeo believes Mr. Palumbo meant to say “Quaker Crossing East”.
Mr. Miller explained to the Board that cumulative impact consideration did take place in the traffic study. He also discussed a town-wide traffic study he prepared for the Town of Clarence and offered this service to the Town of Orchard Park, noting that the analysis performed offered scientific validity. Mr. Murray questions if we should have an outside agent contracted to review the report submitted by the applicant. He, again, stated that he did not find, under SEQRA regulations, the cumulative impact of traffic addressed in the report. Mr. Miller stated that the study, combined other studies; he feels cumulative consideration has taken place, but not for the whole town.
• Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander noted that the submissions from Nussbaumer & Clarke, including the addendum and the traffic report are not stamped by a PC. He requests that their firm come to the Engineering Department, and stamp and seal the submissions in the near future.
• The Chairman reconfirmed with Mr. Ostrander that the Town Engineering Department deems the traffic study acceptable. Mr. Ostrander noted that in the past, the Board has hired an outside consultant to review a document and provide an independent opinion.
The Chairman noted that he is not qualified to review the traffic study; he would like a consultant to review the study and he explained concerns he has regarding traffic traveling from the west. He reconfirmed with Mr. Miller that the NYSDOT is the expert and that they say the access onto Milestrip Road is perfectly safe. He asked Mr. Miller if, in his opinion, he feels it is safe, and Mr. Miller told the Board that with the two conditions placed on the site before the permit can be issued he feels it is.
• The members determined that they would like to see other options from the NYSDOT. Mr. Ostrander, with respect to traffic safety at the site, would like the oneness placed with the NYSDOT. He requests that the applicant get in writing a statement indicating if what they have requested is the only answer/option, or if this can be improved, what can be done to make it better to state if other options were evaluated. The Board can only speculate on their thought process.
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Bernard to TABLE the review of this case pending the applicant contacting the NYSDOT; the petitioners are to explore the range of options for an acceptable curb cut that may allow for improving the angle on the island.
ON THE QUESTION:
The Planning Coordinator noted that a decision was not made on whether or not the Board would like the traffic study reviewed by an outside consultant; he would like to know the Board’s decision. Secondly, the Board approved the site plan for this project in July, 2006 with no driveway access onto Milestrip Road; at present, there is a driveway. Mr. Palumbo’s statement about not wanting to appear presumptuous is incorrect; they have gone ahead and put a driveway in before it was approved by the Planning Board. They have put the “cart before the horse”.
Mr. Zimmer told the Board that the driveway existed at the site and that construction vehicles use the driveway. However, the Chairman noted that there was never a driveway at the site; there was an apron and sidewalk with grass next to the sidewalk.
Mr. Orffeo noted that he does not feel the Board should feel pressured to make a decision regarding this request. The parties working for the applicant did not respond in a timely manner; there were problems with the traffic study and requests were made for basically the same items over a period time since July of 2006. He also told the Board that the addendum to the traffic study was received on 3/27/07.
Mr. Zimmer noted that he takes responsibility for this as he had not understood what was needed.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN NAY
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION BEING ONE (1) AGAINST AND FIVE (5) IN FAVOR THE MOTION IS PASSED.
Mr. Bodden made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Majchrzak to ACCEPT the TRAFFIC STUDY as ADEQUATE. APPROVAL is CONDITIONAL, based on the applicant meeting the requirements of the NYSDOT and responding in writing to the Board’s requests and questions.
ON THE QUESTION:
The Chairman expressed his concerns regarding the completeness of the traffic study, noting that although the study may be considered complete, it does not mean the site is safe. He stated that he is not competent to judge if there is a problem with the submitted traffic study. He further stated that he has not had an opportunity to read it.
Mr. Bodden stated that in his opinion this is making a “mountain out of a mole hill”. He does not understand why we need to hire a consultant when our own Town Engineering Department has reviewed the traffic study and accepts it as adequate. The NYSDOT has approved the curb cut in the submitted design and the property vehicle count is projected to be only 18-vehicles during peak business hours.
Mr. Miller discussed the NYSDOT review of the traffic study and told the Board that under their guidelines the applicant was not required to perform a full-blown traffic study.
Mr. Murray asked for verification that the traffic study considers cumulative impact with regards to the potential of our community having busses and a big box store near this site. He noted that he did not see the word “cumulative” in the study. Mr. Miller stated that item #6 directs the applicant to look at other projects in the area that are approved by the municipality; they did consider the background traffic of Quaker Crossing East; it did not include Quaker Crossing South as it is a nebulous project.
Mr. Ostrander noted in his opinion, item #6 covers cumulative consideration.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA NAY
BERNARD NAY
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MURRAY NAY
THE MOTION BEING THREE (3) AGAINST AND THREE (3) IN FAVOR THE MOTION IS DEFEATED.
CONCEPT REVIEW:
1. P.B. File #10-07, Vacant Land California Road, SBL#161.18-1-3, Orchard Grove Apartments/Bryan Young, Zoned R-4. Applicant to discuss proposal to construct a 201-unit apartment complex.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Bryan Young, developer
Mr. Linc Swedrock, BME Associates
Mr. Young presented plans for a proposed 176-unit apartment complex. He told the Board that the project is similar to one that he constructed in the Town of West Seneca, known as “Fox Trace” located on Southwestern Boulevard. He also stated that the club house, pool and maintenance garage will be similar to those at the “Hammocks” in Orchard Park. Mr. Young told the Board that he discussed the project with Town Engineer Wayne Bieler and Mr. Young was asked to have a connection to Shadow Lane. He would like the Board’ comments on his proposal.
The Board discussed the project and the following was established:
• The road will be private, be constructed to the Town of Orchard Park standards and maintained by the applicant. Mr. Young is reviewing the existing trails in the Town and discussions will take place regarding possible trails at the site; there will be no sidewalks.
• The Board requests that a traffic study be performed taking into consideration Big Tree Road, Ellis Road, California Road and other nearby streets and intersections, and the cumulative impact the project will create for that section of the Town.
• Wetlands are reported on the south; Mr. Young told the Board that a wetlands delineation will be performed; however, prior to this taking place Mr. Young would like the Board’s opinion of the plan.
• The price range of an apartment is approximately $760 to $820.
• Mr. Orffeo requests a revised sketch plan be submitted based on comments pending from the Engineering Department and the Trails Committee. In addition colored elevations should be submitted with architectural detail.
• The Chairman asked that a memo dated 4/11/07, from Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander to the Planning Board, be entered into the record. This memo was as follows:
“The above referenced plan can not be properly reviewed at this time due the lack information presented. This Department recommends that the Planning Board request the following information to be depicted, which will impact to proposed layout:
o Show all property line dimensions and angles.
o Show the 100-year flood elevation.
o Depict limits of wetlands on the property.
o Show access to the proposed retention ponds.
o Show rough utility layout; especially but not limited to the sanitary sewers so that the Planning Board and this Department can be aware of potential lifting station issues.
o Depict dimensions and radii of the proposed roadways.
o Show turnarounds at proposed ‘dead ends’.
The Planning Board must also pose the following questions / issues at tonight’s meeting:
o The issue of public connectivity with Shadow Lane.
o Question if the proposed complex roadways, utilities, and stormwater controls will be public or private.
o Question the impact of the existing National Fuel easement may or may not have on the proposed complex layout (i.e.: some easements limitations the amount of or type of improvements in them).”
• The Chairman would like screening placed along the entranceway.
• Mr. Murray discussed the special ADA construction that exists at the “Hammocks” and Mr. Young noted it is feasible to implement this at this project.
• John Bernard questions the fact that the proposal is based on the former code. Mr. Young discussed the site being “grandfathered-in”; however, Attorney Michael Wolf stated he believes the project should be based on the current regulations. The discussion concluded with Attorney Wolf noting that he and Building Inspector Geist will review the matter further and advise their decision.
• Mr. Frantsits, a resident of 4270 California Road, told the Board that they are doing an excellent job. He discussed traffic and water problems of the area. The Chairman told Mr. Frantsits that he will be advised when public hearings are scheduled for the project; at that time he may voice these concerns.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:07 P.M.
DATED: April 26, 2007 Respectfully Submitted,
REVIEWED: April 26, 2007 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
William McNamara,
Planning Board Chairman