Minutes of the March 14 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
Michael McGuire
Philip Murray
EXCUSED: Eugene Majchrzak
Planning Board Secretary, Rose Seivert
OTHERS PRESENT: Remy C. Orffeo, Planning Coordinator
Thomas Ostrander, Junior Engineer
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Andrew Geist, Building Inspector
Kim Bowers
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.
The Chairman stated that Kim Bowers is substituting for Rose Seivert as the Secretary for tonight’s meeting.
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the reading of the minutes of the February 21, 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 February 21, 2007 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. P.B. File #39-06, One-lot subdivision, Hugh Smith, vacant land, 3410 Angle Road, west side of Angle Road, SBL#153.19-1-12, Zoned R2. Pre-Application Findings were made on 12/13/06. Board to authorize Chairman to set Public Hearing date.
APPEARANCE: Tim Arlington, Apex Consulting
Mr. Arlington explained that the applicant is seeking approval for a one-lot subdivision. He noted that a variance had been granted for the lot width, which is 100-ft.; the depth of the lot is 400-feet. He told the Board that a single family home will be built on this lot.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. McGuire to AUTHORIZE the Chairman to set a Public Hearing when he deems appropriate.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. 7:30 P.M. Continuation of Public Hearing, P.B. File #33-98, Knoche Farms, proposed 97-lot subdivision, vacant land, north side of Milestrip Road, west of Transit Road, Zoned R-2. Planning Board, under SEQRA, to conduct a public hearing for the submitted DEIS. Pre-Application Findings made on 7/8/98 and 3/10/99. Public Hearing adjourned on 2/21/07.
APPEARANCE: Rob Pidanick, GPI
Andrew Leja, Attorney
Mark Hanna, Wilson Environmental Technologies
The Chairman noted that approximately twelve (12) comments have been received regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared by the applicant and distributed by the Planning Office. He asked if anyone present wishes to speak; no additional comments were offered.
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. McGuire to CLOSE the Public Hearing.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
P.B. Mtg. #3 Regular Mtg. #3 March 14, 2007 Page 3
The Planning Coordinator noted that the Town’s consultant, Hatch-Acres has had a name change; it is now known as Hatch-Energy.
Mr. Pidanick gave a brief history of the project and told the Board he is present to answer questions the members may have.
The Chairman asked the Planning Coordinator to report on the written comments received regarding the project.
Planning Coordinator Orffeo stated that responses have been received from the following: Orchard Park Public Safety, Erie County Department of Environment & Planning, Erie County - Division of Sewer Management, Orchard Park School District, Orchard Park Fire Commissioners, resident Fred Haas of 7793 Michael Road (several letters received), the Town of Elma, US Army Corps of Engineers, Orchard Park Planning Board member Mr. Phillip Murray; in addition, the Orchard Park Engineering Department has responded at prior meetings on parts of the DEIS.
Mr. Orffeo noted that with the exception of the Army Corps of Engineers comment, which was received late this afternoon, Mr. Leja has been provided with a copy of all comments. (A copy of the Army Corps of Engineers response was given to Mr. Leja at this meeting.) Mr. Orffeo further noted that no response was received from the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, The Centers for Disease Control, N.Y.S. Department of Transportation, the Town of Orchard Park Supervisor, N.Y.S. Department of Health and Erie County Department of Health. He reported that he had a phone conversation with the D.E.C., wherein, they communicated that they have no response; Mr. Orffeo asked for written confirmation of this fact; to date, he has not received one.
Mr. Orffeo noted that during the Planning Board pre-meeting Deputy Town Attorney Michael Wolf advised the Board on this project. The Board agreed that it would be prudent to close the Public Hearing and to allow the applicant 21-days to respond to the comments received; they would like the comments incorporated into a proposed Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS). Additionally, the Board would like the Town’s consultant (Hatch-Energy) to be allowed 24-days to review this document after its receipt in the Planning Office.
The Chairman stated that Hatch-Energy has expressed to him that they would like a meeting arranged with the D.E.C. and representatives from Knoche to discuss soil issues and the State’s proposal to raise the thresholds used for soil contamination. Hatch-Energy suggests, this meeting, based on other projects reviewed by the Board. The Chairman noted that he is not mandating this meeting.
Mr. Leja stated that he has the following concerns with this request; the Board has made several overtures and asked for comments from the D.E.C and none were received. The State has acted on the proposal to change the threshold limits and the new standards are currently being used by the D.E.C. The soil testing results at the Knoche site do not exceed these current thresholds. He fails to see the purpose for arranging this meeting other than to “kick the tires”. He further feels that if the D.E.C. were interested they would have
P.B. Mtg. #3 Regular Mtg. #3 March 14, 2007 Page 4
commented on the project at this point. The Chairman noted that this is just a suggestion; he is not directing that the applicant have the meeting.
The Chairman noted that the applicants have been provided with all comments received prior to 3/12/07 and a copy of the latest correspondence received in the Planning Office on 3/12/07 from the Army Corps of Engineers, dated 3/9/07. He directed the applicant to prepare the proposed Final EIS using the standard protocol and format.
Mr. Bodden would like specific proof regarding the recent NYS D.E.C. threshold changes for the particular chemicals found at the site. Mr. Leja noted that he will address this in the FEIS.
Mr. Fabinsky noted that he feels the concerns, for the majority of the Board members, are the long-term health ramifications. He asks that this area be addressed thoroughly in the FEIS.
Mr. Leja noted that he understands the Board’s concerns, but he feels the DEIS has addressed this; however, the applicant will try to comment further in the FEIS on this matter. He questioned if the Board is interested in some type of “official” or “expert” verification of their comments, in addition to Hatch-Energy’s, noting that Hatch-Energy was hired to do exactly that. As no comments were received from the Department of Health Mr. Leja feels that, apparently, these agencies have no environmental or public health concerns. He told the Board that, “They are charged under New York State law to be the agent responsible to protect the environment”.
Mr. Fabinsky asked, “If you were the attorney advising us in terms of the minimizing or disposing of the Town’s liability, would you say the failure to respond constituted....would you advise us that we are on sound ground?” Mr. Leja stated, “What I would say, is, that you reached out again to the departments, even after they did not respond the first time, literally reaching out and asking them if they have any questions, which is the due diligence responsibility of the Board”. “You have done everything you can; you can not ring the answers out of them if they don’t want to give them.” “You do have the responsibility to check and investigate and you have through Mr. Orffeo; there have been no answers forthcoming”.
Planning Coordinator Orffeo noted, that besides the letters sent pointing out the concerns with the levels of arsenic and cadmium at the site, the agencies never responded that the standards (thresholds) were changed.
Mr. Murray told Mr. Leja that although the Board is interested in what the D.E.C. and D.O.H has to say, in his opinion they are not the “universe” of chemical analysis for soil and water testing. Mr. Murray noted that in his letter to Mr. Leja (dated 12/28/06) he discusses having an investigation using a broader universe, i.e., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Murray feels that until the broader universe can be used to examine the reported thresholds, using the universe of the D.E.C. and the D.O.H. will not satisfy him, this would be based on the number of organizations available to the Board that can provide further data. He reiterated his request that the applicant use a broader universe to be sure that we know what we are talking about.
Mr. Leja noted that a copy of the DEIS was sent to the D.E.C.; that agency had no response. Mr. Murray noted that, “We could, if it were our role to do so, delineate the universe of standards, setting the organizations that would apply; I do not know if this is necessarily our role”. Mr. Leja told the Board that is what the scoping document encompassed. Mr. Murray stated, “If that were true, where is the applicant’s data that talks about the EPA?” Mr. Leja told the board that in the DEIS there is mention of Federal soil levels and mention of efforts to try and obtain the disease cluster information. Mr. Murray stated that he wants the relationship analysis to be between the soil, threshold and disease clusters. He further stated that until he sees that type of independent analysis he will not be satisfied with what has been submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Leja noted that the term “disease clusters” does not apply in this circumstance. He told the Board that it can not be applied, and not just on his say so. He told the Board that the applicant has reached out to the D.E.C in the DEIS and has also performed searches on the internet. Mr. Murray told Mr. Leja that he disagrees with him and he noted that the EPA has a vast amount of data regarding arsenic, selenium, cadmium, chromium, etc… Mr. Murray stated, “The applicant has not performed the independent work at this point, reporting on what was found at the site in relationship to disease clusters (for lack of a better word) in regards to the soil results submitted”. He questions if the EPA has a greater standard set than the D.E.C. The discussion concluded with Mr. Murray indicating, again, that he is not satisfied with what the applicant has submitted.
It was noted that in September of 2006 the applicants submitted an updated review of a traffic study that had been performed approximately eight-years ago for the proposed project. Mr. McGuire, a resident of the Milestrip Road area, told the applicants that he would like a current traffic study performed. Mr. Leja noted that he sent a correspondence to the Board indicating that it was the opinion of GPI that there have been no significant developments or happenings in the last eight–years that would affect the conclusions to the traffic study that had been performed; the conclusion and findings of the submitted traffic study eight-years ago were that there would be no significant impacts with traffic along Milestrip Road, Transit Road and the surrounding roads. Mr. McGuire stated that he does not find this answer acceptable, noting that Chisholm Trail and Baker Highlands, relatively new subdivisions off of Baker Road, were not accounted for in the nine-year old traffic study. The discussion concluded with the Chairman advising Mr. Leja that he does not believe the Board will accept that there will be “no traffic impact” from the proposed project.
3. P.B. File #52-06, Enidine Corporation, 7 Centre Drive, Zoned I-1. Requesting a Building Permit and Site Plan Approval to construct a 12,500 sq. ft. addition, 1,500 sq. ft. mezzanine and expansion of the existing parking lot. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 9/20/06. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for front yard parking on 10/26/06.
The Chairman noted that due to a family relationship, he will abstain from voting in this matter.
APPEARANCE: Dennis Skully, Owner
Greg Schneider, Aurora Architectural
Brad Vaillancourt, Aurora Architectural
To accommodate the growth of their business, Mr. Skully requests permission to construct a 12,500 sq. ft. addition, increase the number of parking spaces at the site and add a 1,500 sq. ft. mezzanine area. Mr. Schneider explained the proposed plans to the Board, noting that 47-parking spaces will be added to the site and that the total number of parking spaces meets the Town ordinance. He further explained that a variance for front yard parking was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10/26/06; Conservation Board approval was granted on 3/6/07 with an interior green space area of 18.1% and that the retention pond, as directed by the Engineering Department, is located outside the 100-year flood plain.
Mr. Ostrander explained that a minor reconfiguration must be made to the subsurface drainage in the plan. Once this has been re-submitted, Engineering approval will be granted. He feels that the Planning Board could grant conditional recommended approval pending receipt of the revised plan prior to the Town Board meeting. Mr. Ostrander noted Engineering approval will not be granted until the revised plan is submitted accordingly.
Mr. Fabinsky asked for clarification of the mezzanine area and Mr. Skully told the Board that it will be used for offices above the shipping department. It will not exceed the roof line or the existing structure’s roof line.
Mr. Bernard discussed the employee use of the proposed parking spaces. It was established that the proposed parking will solve current parking problems at the site as the employees work in shifts. The configuration of the addition is based on utility line locations.
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard to recommend that the Town Board authorize a Building Permit for an 12,500 sq. ft. Building with a 1,500 sq. ft. mezzanine; the addition of 47-parking spaces and APPROVE the site plan received 3/6/07, based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Short 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. All 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 ($13,895.00) in accordance with the Conservation Board minutes shall be provided for the approved landscape plan, which includes 18.1% interior green space area, prior to the receipt of a Building Permit.
6. Issues of sub-surface drainage shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Town Engineering Department prior to the Town Board meeting on March 21, 2007.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA ABSTAINED
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION BEING 5 (FIVE) IN FAVOR AND 1 (ONE) ABSTENTION, THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
4. P.B. File#19-05, Proposed Quaker Crossing East, Vacant land bounded by Milestrip Road, North Benzing Road, Amelia Drive and Amanda Lane, Zoned B-1. Board to review revised site plan.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Gerald Buchheit, Developer
Mr. Buchheit explained that the original site plans were approved by the Planning Board in October of 2005 and subsequently by the Engineering Department on June 8, 2006; sometime in August of 2006 a revised site plan was sent to the Town. It is unclear to him why the plans were not received in the “right place” and identified as revised plans. He is not placing blame upon anyone in particular. Mr. Buchheit indicated on the revised plan where modifications were made, noting that the square footage of the buildings was slightly increased and additional parking has been added. At the time of the Planning Board approval there were two generic buildings north and east totaling approximately 146,818 sq. ft.
Mr. Bernard confirmed the following has been revised: the most easterly building has been reduced in area, and the northerly building has been extended to the west.
Mr. Fabinsky established that the overall square footage of the plaza has been slightly increased.
In discussing the confusion of having a revised plan, the Planning Coordinator noted that Mr. Buchheit’s engineering firm did not send a submittal to the Planning Office; therefore, there was no reason to advise the Board that the plan had changed. He would like Mr. Buchheit to advise his engineering company to make submissions to the Planning Office first.
Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander noted that Engineering does not have an issue with the revised plan; overall the project is improved. He told the Board that a hard copy of the plan was submitted in August 2006 to the Engineering Department; there was no reason to think other than it was a copy of that was dated approved June 8, 2006; the August 2006 submission was not clearly noted revised.
Mr. Buchheit noted that he was told three different “stories” from his engineering firm as to what occurred with the submission of the revised plans; he told the Board that it is not his intention to deal with the Town of Orchard Park in this way. He further noted that public comments have been made stating that the plaza is “ugly”. In an effort to increase the plaza’s appeal he is conferring with Mr. Bernard regarding the lighting at the site. The use of streetscape lighting is being discussed. He also presented photos depicting a decorative treatment that will be permanently applied to the existing black top.
The members discussed the lighting at the plaza further and the Chairman designated Mr. Bernard to be the Board’s lighting liaison with Mr. Buchheit for approval of lighting at this project.
Mr. Bodden made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to recommend that the Town Board ACCEPT the revised plan dated 7/24/06 for the Quaker Crossing East complex; a total square footage of 163,314 sq. ft +/- of the plaza, not to include the most westerly out-buildings, based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. Mr. Bernard is designated to be the Board’s lighting liaison and work with Mr. Buchheit for approval of lighting at this project.
2. Town Engineering approval was granted on 3/14/07.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Planning Coordinator Remy Orffeo told the members that in 2005 the Board had met regarding a proposed subdivision known as the “Williamsburg Commons”. At that time the members requested a coordinated review be performed. Mr. Orffeo reported that he found this never took place. It was also discovered that the applicant provided an incorrect address on the submitted Long EAF. Once the applicant submits a corrected SEQRA form to the Planning Office the project will move forward.
Concept Review
1. P.B. File #7-07, Board to review a revised proposal for Broxton–Heath Subdivision, vacant land, south side of Powers Road, east of Candy Lane, Zoned R-2. Applicant is proposing 42-lots.
APPEARANCE: Richard Brox, Developer and property owner
Mr. Brox noted that the presented plan proposes a 42-lot subdivision, to be completed in two phases; this plan in pre-application format was originally presented to the Planning Board in the year 2000. Mr. Brox is appearing before the Board for a “concept review” asking for additional comments from the members.
The Planning Coordinator stated that changes have occurred in the Town Code since the year 2000. He explained that during the initial review of this proposal by Principal Engineer Assistant Dave Yates he was advised that the configuration of the road does not meet the current standards of the Town Code. Mr. Orffeo suggests that Mr. Brox meet with Mr. Yates and the Town Engineer Wayne Bieler. Mr. Brox questioned who Mr. Yates was and why his comments were not at this meeting. Mr. Orffeo told Mr. Brox that this meeting is a concept review. Mr. Brox then asked why he was not sent the comments, so he would know what to expect. The Chairman noted, “Sir this is why you are here now”. Mr. Brox stated, “I’ve been here before and...” The Chairman noted, “Six years ago”. Mr. Brox continued, “I spent a lot of money for no reason and I want comments in writing from you people of what is expected”. Mr. Orffeo stated, “Going back to my information to the Board, my suggestion is that the applicant talk to Mr. Yates, who is an engineer assistant, regarding the layout of the roads; second, as we talked about during the work session, because of the age of this project I would like the Board to request that the SEQRA and other relevant information be updated”. Mr. Brox noted, “Nothing is changed”.
Mr. Bernard noted the petitioner did go through evolutions with this project; so many lots, bigger lots…. He further noted it appears the site plan is back to what was first proposed at the beginning; he commented that he is not sure the SEQRA documents are correct. Mr. Brox told the Board that the original SEQRA submission was for a 42-lot subdivision; at that time he was told that this was not a sewer district and that there were no sewers. Later, it was found that the Town was in error as the project was located in a sewer district. Mr. Brox told the Board that there is sewer capacity, downstream; therefore he is using the original SEQRA based on the original plan.
Mr. Murray noted that this is not true. Mr. Brox asked, “What is not true…tell me what is not true?” Mr. Murray stated, “In five, six or seven years the community has changed; traffic patterns………” Mr. Brox stated, “Not in this area”. Mr. Murray stated, “Well then perhaps……but regionally.” Mr. Brox noted that there has been no new construction in this area and that there is no new subdivision downstream in this area”. Mr. Murray asked if Mr. Brox would prefer the Board table this tonight and Mr. Brox stated, “No, I want to get some answers tonight; I want written comments saying what’s wrong with the road radius, if that is the only thing that’s the problem.” He further commented, “I am tired of getting lied to, I want answers”. Mr. Murray told Mr. Brox that this is a concept review and if he would like the Board to proceed further, it is likely the Board would want a new SEQRA, a new update and a Site Plan that is conforming to engineering requirements. He explained that these are three areas that Mr. Brox should know to be concerned about.
Mr. Brox stated, “Let me ask this question, if you hadn’t screwed up originally, six-years ago.” The Chairman stated, “Look, we are going to cool this down right
now; the last time you were in this room, you came in with an attitude”. Mr. Brox stated, “Yes, I did….” The Chairman stated, “But, look we are trying to help you out; I was not on this Board in 2000”. Mr. Brox stated, “Then you don’t know what happened”. The Chairman stated, “You are right, I don’t know what happened; we are trying to give you feed back now; you’re back six-years later, what if you came back in twenty-years?” Mr. Brox stated, “There would not have been a problem if the Town had not lied and screwed over….” The Chairman stated, “Look, we are going to conclude this meeting right now unless your attitude changes; do you understand me?” Mr. Brox stated, “Right now?” The Chairman stated, “Right now…” Mr. Brox stated, “Proceed, ask questions.”
The Chairman told Mr. Brox that he suggests he submit an updated SEQRA or a new SEQRA. Mr. Brox asked if this is required and the Chairman told him that it is. Mr. Brox must consult with engineering on his road configuration as the design standard has changed and his is outdated. The Planning Coordinator additionally noted that, any project over three (3) years must have the wetlands delineation updated.
The Chairman suggests that Mr. Brox be given an informational packet that all petitioners receive; it was noted that this is on the Town web site, www.orchardparkny.org However; the Planning Coordinator will provide Mr. Brox with the informational packet. Mr. Brox asked if he must do another study for site distance on Powers Road, noting that it has already been proven that it is acceptable. The Chairman noted that this is addressed in the SEQRA document. The Chairman then explained to Mr. Brox that the Board would be able to review his project and forget about “last time” if he would get the “chip” off his shoulder. He further explained that the Board would like to proceed in a way that will be beneficial to all. He stated, “Right now the way this is going, you are going to be in a “world of hurt”, going this way”. Mr. Brox noted that he was in a “world of hurt” before. The Chairman stated, “Well let’s try to pull you out of the “world of hurt”, okay?” “Let’s send him the packet, you can go through it; it’s got all the up-to-date information on what you need to do; let’s take it from there. Let’s forget about… maybe your frustrations are entirely warranted, but it is not going to do you any good when you come into this meeting with an attitude”.
The Planning Coordinator stated that with his permission he will consult with Mr. Yates and Mr. Bieler, and send a correspondence to Mr. Brox advising him of the items that will need to be updated. He will provide Mr. Brox with Mr. Yates’ comments on the layout of the roadway.
Mr. Bodden noted that there will be trails issues for Mr. Brox to consider and he would like to be advised on the property that surrounds the proposed subdivision; who owns the surrounding properties and what is the current zoning? Mr. Brox stated that the site is surrounded by vacant land, zoned agricultural – except for an area bordered by “Cherry Lane”. He believes that he has supplied this information on an earlier map. Mr. Bodden noted that the Board is trying to help Mr. Brox. Mr. Brox stated that he appreciates that. He further explained that he was very upset over the way he was treated. Mr. Bodden told Mr. Brox, “Let’s get over that; before is before, now is now, the Board is here to help you.”
Mr. Brox noted that he does not want to get into any arguments with the Town Engineer regarding storm water drainage at the site. Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander noted that this will not happen as the Town standard is based on the year “2003 Phase II Storm Water Requirements” for controlling quantity and quality of site water run-off. Mr. Ostrander further commented that the Town is strict with regards to controlling water. He asked Mr. Brox what his plans are (in order to help him out) for a detention facility. Mr. Brox stated that he plans to have a detention area located at the rear property, noting, “The adjacent subdivision storm water drainage dumps onto this property without their having any storm drainage detention and, that, “They will collect their water, plus our water and contain it”. Mr. Ostrander noted, “This is standard for a drainage system”. He explained further to Mr. Brox that present day, traditionally, the Town takes dedication of the pond and maintains the pond”. Mr. Brox stated, “The Town has always maintained that they do not want to own a wet pond”. Mr. Ostrander stated, “We own quite a few of them now”. Mr. Brox noted, “They told me flat out - we don’t want to own your damn pond”. “That was in 2000”, noted Mr. Ostrander. Mr. Brox stated, “That was up until 2004”. Mr. Ostrander explained to Mr. Brox that unless you have a home owner’s association, based on Phase II requirements, the Town takes ownership of a wet or dry pond so that the pond and the association drainage system can be properly maintained. Mr. Brox noted “The guy over here does not want to own that guy’s pond”. Mr. Ostrander strongly recommends that Mr. Brox meet with Town Engineer Wayne Bieler to discuss what the Town has, and will be doing with storm water control; it will be for the benefit of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Brox stated, “Okay”.
Mr. Brox stated, “Seeing this is just a plain old ordinary subdivision, the original 42-lot subdivision, the Recreation Commission just wanted the fee; they did not want to bother with any green space within the subdivision.” The Chairman noted that the Conservation Board will review his project and comment on this. The Planning Coordinator stated that this is being treated as a brand new project. Mr. Brox commented that he previously was told that the Town did not want land. Mr. Orffeo stated that he can’t speak for the Board; they will make a recommendation after reviewing the project. Mr. Ostrander added that this green space is “traditionally” tied to the storm water detention facilities that were earlier discussed.
Mr. Brox stated, “Okay what else; I would like a copy of that ruling that changed the nature of the property”. “They (Town in 2000) were adamant that they do not want to own the pond.” Mr. Ostrander stated, “Again, that that was then, and this is now, I recommend, again, that Mr. Brox open discussions with the Town Engineer”.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:57 P.M.
DATED: April 9, 2007 Respectfully Submitted,
REVIEWED: April 9, 2007 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
William McNamara,
Planning Board Chairman