Minutes of the aUGUST 13, 2008 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
Kim Bowers
Harold Fabinsky
Eugene Majchrzak
Philip Murray
Nicholas Taneff, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT: Remy C. Orffeo, Planning Coordinator
Thomas Ostrander, Junior Engineer
Andrew Geist, Building Inspector
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Rose Seivert, Recording Secretary
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 July 9, 2008 Planning Board meeting was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received a copy.
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to accept the minutes of the July 9, 2008 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
BOWERS ABSTAINED
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Chairman stated that with regards to P.B. File #27-08, Sofas, Etc. the applicant, Mr. Denisco, requests that the Board amend their motion for Outside Display as the approval date he had requested conflicted with Carolina Furniture’s Outside Display approval date, located adjacent to his site. Mr. Denisco indicated to Planning Coordinator Orffeo that he prefers to have a separate sales event and would like to schedule this event for September 26, 2008 through October 3, 2008.
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bodden to amend the motion with regards to P.B. File #27-08, to allow the approval to erect a 45’ x 30’ vinyl tent within
the northwest corner of the front parking lot to grant outside display from September
26, 2008 to October 3, 2008. The tent will be taken down on October 3, 2008. All other stipulations in the June 11, 2008 motion shall apply.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
BOWERS AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. P.B. #40-08, K & K Store, 3846 Southwestern Blvd., located on the north east corner of Abbott and South Western Blvd. (across from Ralph Wilson Stadium), Zoned B-2. (SBL#161.09-4-8.1) Applicant requests Planning Board approval of Outside Display to erect a grill and small tent.
APPEARANCE: Ms. Andrea Jakiel, Applicant/owner
Ms. Jakiel explained to the Board that she would like to grill and sell hot dogs during the Buffalo Bills’ Football home games. It was established that she would erect a 20 ft. x 20 ft. vinyl tent that would be taken down after each game. Building Inspector Geist noted that any additional permits will be acquired through the Health Department.
Mr. Bodden made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard, Regarding Planning Board File #40-08, I move to GRANT Outside Display for a tent 20 ft. x 20 ft. and a small grill during the Buffalo Bill’s Football Season Games (8/28/08 thru 2/1/09) based on the plan received on 7/22/08 with the following stipulations:
1. This is a Type II SEQR action and therefore no SEQR determination is required.
2. There will be no additional outside lighting for the display or temporary structure.
3. There will be no banners or additional signage for this facility.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
BOWERS AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. P.B. File #38-08, Fellowship Wesleyan Church, 1645 Southwestern Blvd., Zoned R-2. (SBL#154.05-1-1.1) Applicant requests Planning Board approval to erect a picnic shelter for church events.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Steve Moorman, Trustee
Mr. Moorman explained that the church would like to hire “Just Barns” to construct a picnic shelter at the rear of their property for events that would be held after church services. The proposed building will be 24’ wide by 50’ long and be 9’ in height. He told the Board that, presently, the church rents a shelter at Chestnut Ridge Park. The Board members’ questions established the following:
• The building will have electricity; it will not have walls; it will be constructed of wood and have a metal roof that will match another building on the site.
• Mr. Moorman told the Board that he intends to use non-glaring lighting. Mr. Bernard discussed the lighting at the site further with Mr. Moorman. Mr. Moorman also told the Board that there will be safety lights installed.
• The Board verified where nearby residential homes were located.
• Mr. Moorman anticipates events attracting approximately 70 to 100 people.
• The site has adequate parking – there are 400-parking spaces.
• There will be no winter use of the shelter.
• Location of dumpsters was verified on the site map.
• A peat gravel base will be installed initially; however, concrete will eventually be poured at the shelter.
Mr. Majchrzak made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Bowers, to recommend that the Town Board AUTHORIZE a Building Permit for an 24’ wide x 50’ long open pole barn to be used as a Picnic Shelter for church events based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is a Type II SEQR action and therefore no determination of significance is required.
2. The height of the structure is 9-feet tall.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
BOWERS AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. P.B. File 06-08, Tim Horton’s Restaurant, 3878 Southwestern Blvd., located on the north side of Southwestern Blvd., west of the existing Mobile gas station at the intersection of Southwestern Blvd./Abbott Road, Zoned B-2. (SBL#161.09-4-12.1) Applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a new 3,080 sq. ft. building, pavement, utilities, lighting and landscaping upon .93 acres. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 2/27/08.
APPEARANCE: Ralph Lorigo, Attorney
Dan Blamowski, FRA Engineering
Bob Bender, Tim Horton’s
This project was seen as a concept review item by the Planning Board at their April 9, 2008 meeting. The applicant has returned for the Board’s review and recommendation to the Town Board.
Mr. Lorigo told the Board that the proposed project is to construct a 3,080 sq. ft. building upon .93-acres and that it is similar to the existing Tim Horton’s located at Abbott Road and Lake Avenue. There will be room for approximately 19-vehicles to stack in the drive-through area and there will be 32-parking spaces at the site. Mr. Lorigo noted that a water well on the site will be abandoned per NYS DEC standards.
Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander stated that, if approved, two (2) stipulations from the Town Engineer will need to be added to the motion. He explained that the project will create a negative impact for Sheldon Road with regards to the storm water drainage system and that the engineer must submit a supporting calculation before going to the Town Board for approval. Also, the existing well on the site shall be abandoned per NYS DEC regulations and codes.
Mr. Murray established that this property is not the same size as the Abbott Road and Lake Avenue Tim Horton’s site. He inquired if a different kind of traffic study was performed at this site and he expressed his concerns regarding the site being smaller and what appears to be a fairly narrow egress and ingress. Mr. Murray feels there are unusual circumstances at this site and he questions if the applicant feels it is as safe as the Abbott Road and Lake Avenue Tim Horton’s location when you factor in the heavy traffic that exists on the complex roadway of Southwestern Boulevard where the traffic appears to be traveling very fast. He inquired if anything different was done to calculate the safety for this particular Tim Horton’s. Mr. Blamowski told the Board that the NYS DOT performed the work and the study performed for this site was the “usual”. The discussion of the highway safety in this area being treated as the “usual” concluded with Mr. Murray stating that he feels there are some “unusual factors” at this small site.
Mr. Blamowski noted that this site will by far have the most stacking; 28 to 30 vehicles before reaching the street.
It was further established that the adjacent vacant land is owned by the applicant and that the intention is to lease it in the future. The land will not be used to expand the proposed Tim Horton’s; however, Planning Coordinator Orffeo stated that it was made clear to the applicant that they must return before the Planning Board before proceeding with any plans for this parcel.
Ms. Bowers noted that she is familiar with the Tim Horton’s near her work place
(Campbell Boulevard) and she stated that the roadway there is not as busy as Southwestern Boulevard; however, she finds it to be a nightmare to exit this site. She expressed her concerns for exiting out onto Southwestern Boulevard. She established that seven-cars can wait to exit onto Southwestern Boulevard after leaving the pickup window. She noted she has concerns for vehicles that cannot exit. “What happens do vehicles just sit there?” Mr. Blamowski discussed the signals that exist on Southwestern Boulevard that have been put in place that will aid in the flow of traffic; one being at Erie Community College and the other at the intersection of Abbott Road and Southwestern Boulevard.
Mr. Lorigo stated that this store poses no real risk of cars being out on Southwestern Boulevard. This store is a prototype and it has been designed with the most vehicle queuing than any other Tim Horton’s.
Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander noted that the NYS DOT approved the entranceway configuration and that a full center lane was added on Southwestern Boulevard during the recent reconstruction.
Mr. Murray discussed the note on the site plan regarding the snow storage area and “excessive snowfall amounts”. It was established that excess snow will be removed from the site and hauled away. Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander stated that all commercial sites have a notation on site plans regarding snow removal and where it is stored. He further stated that when snow reaches a certain level it is hauled away.
Mr. Murray, again, questioned if the traffic at the site had been looked at in a different way. Mr. Blamowski noted that it had not been reviewed in another way other than the “usual” way the other “typical” Tim Horton sites are. Mr. Blamowski noted that he has found that most customers park or leave when stacking reaches numbers exceeding 15 to 19-vehicles. Mr. Murray inquired as to what the volume of traffic would be generated for the site and Mr. Bender did not have that calculation available.
Ms. Bowers stated that she is not worried about the queuing; she is concerned about vehicles exiting the site.
Mr. Bernard discussed the proposed lighting at the site. He noted that the front wall packs are not the same as the rear wall packs. In addition, he would like the applicant to provide the fixture cuts. He also noted that the lighting level is higher than what is allowed. To address concerns for the residential homes located here, the applicant is requested to use 250-watt bulbs in the rear pole lights; this will lower the average at the site. In addition, house shields are to be added.
Mr. Taneff expressed a concern for the parking lot being used during the Buffalo Bill’s Football games by fans and it was established that the parking lot will be monitored.
Mr. Bodden made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Majchrzak, to recommend that the Town Board AUTHORIZE a Building Permit for a 3,080 sq.ft. +/- restaurant with a drive-through and APPROVE the site plan received 6/30/08 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 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 with house shields. The four poles on the north end of the property shall be reduced to 250 watts.
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 which includes 11% interior green space, prior to the receipt of a Building Permit.
6. Town Engineering Approval has been granted on 8/13/08. Prior to going to the Town Board, the applicant shall submit to Engineering summary calculations to document that the Site Detention system will aid in decreasing the overall storm water conveyance to Sheldon Road’s infrastructure.”
7. The existing well onsite shall be abandoned per NYSDEC regulations and codes.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
BOWERS NAY
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY NAY
THE MOTION BEING TWO (2) AGAINST AND FIVE (5) IN FAVOR, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
4. P.B. File #14-08, Calamar/Senior Services, Inc. is requesting SR designation and is proposing to develop a 90-unit Independent Living Apartment Complex, (Eagle Crest Senior Apartments) upon Vacant Land located at the end of Weiss Avenue, Zoned B-2 and R-3. (SBL#’s 152.12-3-11 & 152.11-3-22) Town Board referred to Planning Board on 4/2/08.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Kenneth Franasiak, President Calamar
Mr. Phil Silvestre, Silvestre Architects
Mr. Adam Walters, Attorney
The Calamar project has been seen as a concept review item by the Planning Board several times, prior to this evening.
Mr. Walters stated that the applicant is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Town Board regarding their request to have the property rezoned to the SR designation in order to develop a senior housing complex.
Mr. Walters further stated that since the time of the last Planning Board concept review, the project has been revised, based on concerns that were expressed by the residents that attended the two meetings that Calamar held for the area residents. He explained that the project was down-sized from the original proposal of 160-units to 90-units, it was relocated on the site and oversize detention areas have been designed to aid with drainage at the site to improve the existing and future drainage concerns expressed by the neighbors. Mr. Walters presented an overlay that included an aerial photograph of the site. He told the Board that a large buffer area will be maintained for the Eaglebrook Road residents and that there will be no impact to the existing wetlands. Mr. Walters discussed the applicant’s submitted long EAF and he also noted that a traffic study was performed that concluded that the project will not create an adverse impact on traffic in the area.
Mr. Walters noted that a spokes person for the residents, Mr. Ron Stadelmaier, recently e-mailed 11-additional concerns regarding the project and Mr. Walters commented on these concerns. A copy of this e-mail was distributed to the Board members. (listed below for record purposes) Mr. Walters discussed each point that Mr. Stadelmaier made as follows:
1. There appears to be no room for a suitable berm, or room to leave natural vegetation in place as a buffer, or room for heavy construction equipment to avoid "crossing the line" into Mr. Grotke's parcel.
Mr. Walters stated that only five-feet is available for a buffer area; there is no room for a berm. You would need a berm that was at least 35-feet high to diminish the height of the complex.
Mr. Franasiak noted that he had a discussion with one resident regarding buffering and concluded that if it becomes an issue, he would be willing to plant pine trees on the property line if needed, as it is not known what will be seen until the building is built to shield his residence from the complex.
2. I would like to suggest that incorporating the approximately 1 acre "parking lot" into your land acquisition and revised site plan, if amendable to the Downing Family and Holiday Health, would give you some flexibility to allow for footprint revisions and a chance for acceptable reduced impact on these important neighbors.
Mr. Franasiak stated that the Downing property is not for sale.
3) Residents at the "dead end" of Boldt Court have noticed negative changes in storm water drainage patterns since construction of the new McDonald's on Orchard Park Road, and have experienced increased saturation and even pooling of runoff in their rear yards. Sump pumps are running much more than before, and in February of 2008,
one resident had his basement flooded while away due to a power failure. These residents are very concerned that the Calamar project may worsen the poor drainage dynamics and storm water flow of their immediate area.
Mr. Walters stated that there is nothing from the Calamar project site that will impact Boldt Court; the Calamar site is downstream from Boldt Court.
4). Calamar has suggested preserving all of the remaining undeveloped acreage "as is", which is very good for the entire area, and I commend you folks for this initiative. However, the neighbors would like this proposal defined, i.e., will it be a deed stipulation, or a perpetual conservation easement, or will the remaining land be donated to the Town for permanent care and preservation. Folks would like to see written evidence of this (not just a promise), and hopefully gain an understanding under what circumstances, if any, the mechanism chosen to preserve the land can be reversed by Calamar, subsequent land owners, or even the Town.
Mr. Fabinsky inquired as to what the applicant’s land donation to the Town of Orchard Park would be; did Calamar intend on adding green space to the existing Town Park, or did they propose to place land into a perpetual conservation easement? Mr. Franasiak told the Board that the Town could have as much as land as they wanted, less the acres required for the project, which is 2.7 acres.
5) Neighbors would like definition as to exactly how much natural vegetation will be removed or disturbed on the site and from where, to include any land disturbance required for construction of infrastructure and utilities (sewers, storm water management, utilities, etc.) and loss of vegetation due to the use/movement of heavy machinery to accomplish the construction. We'd like to know how the vegetation especially mature trees) will be identified for preservation, and how we and the Town will be able to enforce this.
Mr. Walters noted that disturbance will be 2.7 acres.
6) The residents on Eaglebrook Drive would like to know who will be responsible for maintenance of the famous "Eaglebrook Ditch" that runs parallel behind our properties. The current landowners have never maintained it properly, or at all for that matter - as you know, it's loaded with trash, standing water, and is loaded with cattails and breeds mosquitoes like crazy in the summer.
He discussed an underground conduit pipe that will be put in place to the creek. Calamar will own the pipe and be ultimately responsible for its cleanout.
7) We are thrilled that federal jurisdictional wetlands were finally properly identified and delineated on the northern Downing parcel, and we thank you. However, the wetlands delineation report you submitted does not identify any wetlands in the flood plain - they are there also, gentlemen, and are substantial - and we wonder why the report does not include identification or discussion of them.
Mr. Walters noted that there is no proposed development in the flood plain; therefore, there no wetland delineation is necessary.
8. Neighbors remain skeptical that the proposed "detention pond" for the northwest corner of the project will ever be dry - we believe depth to groundwater here is 1' or less. We believe the pond will always be very "wet" (and thus a "retention pond"), and wonder if the engineering calculations for the pond's capacity are flawed or will ever adequately serve its intended purpose to capture and manage all of the storm water generated from
the site's impervious surfaces, especially in the event of a moderate to heavy 24 hour rain event. In addition, if indeed it is a wet "retention" pond, we wish to understand who will responsible for properly maintaining the pond.
Mr. Walters discussed the proposed detention ponds for the site. Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander noted that the Engineering Department will not be reviewing this project in full until it has received the proper rezoning of the “SR” Designation from the Town Board.
9) Regarding storm water and discharge to the creek, we remain very concerned that during the construction period, the quantity and speed of runoff to the creek will increase, increasing the threat of flooding, and that the runoff will be loaded with sediment. We also remain skeptical that after construction, the proposed storm water management system will not replace nature, and will increase the rate of flow of captured storm water to the creek, and increase the flooding potential during storm events. Further, we believe that despite the claims of human engineering, construction of yet another development project on an already reduced Smokes Creek watershed and stream corridor will only add to the negative cumulative impact on the creek, which has deteriorated the creek bed, reduced water quality, and increased the threat of flooding in our area.
Mr. Walters stated that the applicant feels the oversized detention ponds will alleviate the problems of the area and he does not feel the project will impact the creek further.
10) Neighbors remain very concerned that Calamar will someday want to expand their senior housing complex, either to the south (through future purchase of properties), or to the west and north (by obtaining a US Army Corps of Engineers permit and filling in/replacing the recently delineated wetlands and replacing them elsewhere). In addition, there is concern that Boldt Court will be considered for expansion as a thru-street for this or future development. We would like written assurance from Calamar that this will not happen.
Mr. Walters stated that there are no additional plans at this point in time; it is always possible. He further stated that with regards to expanding using Boldt Court that there were no plans by Calamar to do so.
Mr. Fabinsky asks that the applicant agree to stipulate to the size of the build-out. Mr. Walters stated that he feels that will not be a problem.
Mr. Bodden discussed the dedication of parkland to the Town. Mr. Walters stated that certainly is a possibility.
11) With regard to your traffic analysis, I have attached comments from an area resident with a keen eye for traffic studies, which I hope you will read and consider.
Mr. Silvestre noted that the report shows that the traffic is spread out over the day and that most residents that will reside at the complex will be retired.
Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander commented that the McDonald’s site has two detention ponds (1-subsurface and 1-surface) and previously there were none at the site; he believes this summer has had an unusually heavy amount of rainfall; Boldt Court should not be affected by the drainage from McDonald’s site.
Chairman McNamara stated that this is not a skilled healthcare facility and that the residents of this facility will not generate any more emergency response calls than if these same citizens were scattered about Orchard Park in single family residences.
Mr. Murray stated that to many it makes sense to have the rezoning first and to leave the details of the SEQR document to later; unfortunately, he does not agree with this. He wants to review the details and know if this is a good project for this particular site or not. This is difficult for him to do without knowing what the details are. The applicant states that there will be no impact on public health. He questions how scientific this decision is. He asked Mr. Walters if he feels the Town of Orchard Park Volunteer Fire Company can respond to this site in a timely manner.
Mr. Walters told Mr. Murray that a response in writing was provided; in summary, it stated that housing similar to the proposed project indicates that active seniors generated one call per month.
Chairman McNamara stated that this is the same as a private residence.
Mr. Murray stated that a dilemma occurring in trying to plan is, “Should we worry about infrastructure prior to development?” “Or should we worry about it later?” “Should we worry about drainage later, traffic later; but let’s just go ahead and develop first.” “The theory, I think, is to do infrastructure first and development after that.” “The curious phenomenon in all our experience with projects is almost never a negative impact.” “Mysterious as that is, if you take projects one by one we seem to mitigate and cumulative impact seems hard to talk about”. Mr. Ostrander established that a public improvement permit (PIP) Site Plan will be reviewed concurrently with the development Site Plan.
Ms. Bowers verified that the parking requirement has been met at the site and that there will be 90-parking spaces at the site.
Mr. Bernard stated that the property is not Zoned R-3, Multifamily, which would require a Special Exception Use. He told the applicants that the property is Zoned R-3, Residential.
Mr. Bernard discussed the landscaping plan; he noted that he is concerned about the screening provided at the south. He does not believe it is adequate. Planning Coordinator Orffeo stated that the final landscaping plan is forth coming based on the Conservation Board’s comments from the August 3, 2008 meeting. Mr. Bernard also discussed the photometric plan provided by the applicant noting that the font was a small scale; he told the applicants that the lighting levels will need to be reduced to a lower level at the site.
Mr. Bodden established that there are no tax subsidies with this project and that the roadway will be Town owned.
Mr. Majchrzak established with Junior Engineer Ostrander that the roadway and its infrastructure will be constructed per Town Highway standards.
Chairman McNamara made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Bowers, to recommend that the Town Board APPROVE the request to assign the SR DESIGNATION, per Section144-46.1, to Vacant Land currently Zoned B-2 and R-3, located at the end of Weiss Avenue for the purpose of developing a 90-Unit independent living apartment complex project known as “Eagle Crest Senior Apartments”, based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is a Type 1 SEQR action based on the submitted Long EAF, Parts One and Two and it is recommended the Town Board conduct a coordinated review for Site Plan Approval.
2. Acreage fees shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-Attachment 1:4 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 5/9/08 and shall revert to its original zoning classification if the project is not completed per Section 144-67 of the Town Code.
4. The petitioner will assure the preservation of the natural character of the green space on the property by agreeing to donate land for expansion of the adjacent Town Park and/or placing it under a perpetual conservation easement at the Town’s discretion.
5. The fully completed size at build out shall be limited to the number of units specified in this motion.
6. No additional streets or roadways will be located on the property that are not part of the currently approved plan.
7. The drainage plan will provide for the petitioner to maintain all portions of the existing drainage ditch that remain on the project property and will, as described by the petitioner, also, be designed with enhanced storage reserve capacity to preemptively address potential flooding problems in hydrologically sensitive areas downstream of the project.
8. Additional screening shall be provided for the Grotke property at Mr. Grotke’s request at the recommendation of the Conservation Board, Planning Board or Town Board.
9. The road and cul-de-sac shall be dedicated to the Town.
10. All agreements and understandings that are part of the written record and/or tapes are included as a condition of approval.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BERNARD NAY
BODDEN AYE
BOWERS AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY NAY
THE MOTION BEING TWO (2) AGAINST AND FIVE (5) IN FAVOR, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
5. P.B. File #37-08, Diane DeMarco, 3964 California Road, located on the west side of California Road, Zoned I-1. (SBL#161.03-1-8) Applicant requests Planning Board approval to construct a shelter for events to be held at this site. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 6/25/08.
APPEARANCE: Mrs. Diane DeMarco, Applicant
Chairman McNamara established with Mrs. DeMarco that other events will be held at this site other than the advertised “Angel Flight” event. She mentioned the Orchard Park Police and the Orchard Park Lyons Club may use the site in the future. It was also noted that Fisher Busses and vehicles from stadium events presently park at this site.
Mr. Murray stated that when he reviewed the Planning Board file regarding this project he found that the Planning Coordinator had sent a request to the Demarco’s asking that a short SEQR form be submitted by July 28, 2008 to the Planning Office; this form was not in the file. He further noted that he feels a dual usage exists on this property and that variances may be required to support the project.
Mrs. Demarco told the Board that she did not receive the Planning Coordinator’s correspondence requesting the short SEQR form. In placing a call to the Planning Office to check on the status of her project, prior to tonight’s meeting, she discovered the fact that the SEQR form had been requested. Upon learning that the short SEQR form was needed she faxed it to the Planning Office. Mrs. DeMarco presented the original short SEQR form to the Board and she also told the Board that no one resides at this property.
Mr. Murray stated that he feels the Board has not had the opportunity to review the SEQR document to see how it factors into the project. Also, the question of dual usage remains, as it seems to him there is one site with two separate uses.
Planning Coordinator Orffeo commented on this situation concluding that the Board has the option to act on the project, or not. He further noted that he has not had the opportunity to review the SEQR form and that he is not prepared to act or sign-off on Part II.
Chairman McNamara told Mrs. DeMarco that he feels she should know and understand the process that is required in the Town of Orchard Park.
Mr. Bodden established that the applicant has a self imposed time constraint with this project due to the advertised “Angel Flight” fund raiser set for September 13th, 2008. He would like to know what the project will look like and the number of expected events that will be held here. He would also like to know how many people will be attending these events and what will be done to buffer the residents in the immediate area.
Mr. Fabinsky discussed the photos of the site that were submitted showing a partial brick wall existing at the site upon a concrete patio. He told Mrs. Demarco that the “Angel Flight” event is a noble cause; however, it does not change the nature of responsibility regarding the proposed project.
Mr. Bernard discussed parking at the site and established that 600-spaces are available upon a gravel area. He confirmed with the Planning Coordinator that the Conservation Board has taken the position that the Planning Board is to determine the percentage of the green space area requirement in the parking area. Mr. Bernard also questions what the frequency of the events to be held here would be and if bathroom accommodations would be provided.
Ms. Bowers would like a lighting plan provided.
Chairman McNamara told Mrs. Demarco that he would like to be provided with information regarding the adjacent neighbors, what other groups may be using the site and for the Board to be provided with an aerial photo of the site. He further stated that he cannot vote in this matter without this information and that he did not appreciate being provided a last minute form for the Board to review.
Mr. Fabinsky noted that the site is unpaved and it was for one event; now it is a field of crushed stone and is being proposed as hosting various events. He believes interior green space should be provided, or that provisions should be made for this. Also, he feels the project keeps on growing with parking for stadium events, Fisher Busses; there is no rational decision process.
Mr. Murray made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky to TABLE this case.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
BOWERS AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION TO TABLE WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
6. P.B. File #35-08, Jack Bertsch, 3853 North Buffalo Road, located on the east side of North Buffalo Road, Zoned B-3. (SBL#162.09-1-36) Applicant is requesting a Change-In-Use for a Residential Home to be converted to Retail/Office Use. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 7/2/08.
APPEARANCE: No One was present
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Chairman McNamara to TABLE this case.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BERNARD AYE
BODDEN AYE
BOWERS AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION TO TABLE WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. P.B. #36-08, Iroquois Drive Condominiums, Vacant Land located at the north end of Iroquois Drive, west of Route 219, Zoned R-3. (SBL#152.10-5-7) Applicant is proposing the construction of 44-condominiums. Board to review concept plan.
APPEARANCE: Pete Johnston, Wm. Schutt & Associates
Thom Schuster
Mr. Johnston presented and explained a concept plan to the members. He stated that the proposal is to construct 6-units per acre. They have indicated to NSYEG
that they will relocate the project away from the power lines. Presently, the water source is being researched for the site and they are waiting for an answer from the Erie County Water Authority. The roadway proposed will be a private roadway.
Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander stated that Iroquois Drive is an older roadway with drainage problems. He read a memo from Town Engineer Wayne Bieler stating that the Town wants the proposed roadway to be a public road with a cul-de-sac and not a large looping road. (Memo below for record purposes.)
Iroquois Drive Condominiums Project Concept Plans
o The concept Site Plan’s present layout is unacceptable; Iroquois Drive extension must be a public roadway cul-de-sac extension or looped roadway extension (built to Town Standards) for traffic, public safety and egress/ingress.
o The concept Site Plan’s present layout does not facilitate traffic for large vehicles including large emergency vehicles, garbage, plow trucks, etc. (looping required or needed?)
o Note: A connection to Berg Road is possible, if required by the Planning Board.
o The concept Site Plan must be revised to depict the development’s watermain alignment for feasibility verification. This is a low pressure area.
o The concept Site Plan must be revised to depict the development’s sanitary sewer system alignment for feasibility verification.
o We are not aware of any problems with sanitary sewer capacity in the area. However, this must be confirmed with ECDEP and ECSD#3, if connection the County trunk line is needed.
o The concept Site Plan must be revised to depict tentative locations of proposed light standards on both sides of the roadway for proper coverage. Final locations light standards will be determined by the NYSEG and the Town.
o With the close proximity of the NYSEG high power lines, the presently proposed building locations must be questioned for safety, etc., and this issue of locating building adjacent to the power lines must be coordinated with NYSEG accordingly.
o The concept Site Plan must be revised to depict existing and proposed contours to verify proposed locations of retention pond; positive outfall and emergency spillway location and access to these structures must be depicted.
o Note: The existing Iroquois Drive residents have problems presently with stormwater run-off as the flow pattern seems to be from north to south (this must be addressed as a part of this proposed project), if it is allowed to proceed, and from south to north; both flow patterns caused drainage problems at the end of the existing roadway and in the existing residents yards.
o The concept Site Plan must be revised to depict recreational land to be conveyed to the Town, if required by the Planning Board.
o The concept Site Plan must be revised to depict the proper buffering / mitigation for possible state wetlands and depict the federal wetlands onsite (as depicted on the present boundary survey).
Mr. Fabinsky noted that he has concerns regarding health with the electrical lines being located close to residential homes.
Mr. Bernard noted that nineteen-years ago a project was proposed for this site.
He concurs with Mr. Fabinsky and feels that a full EAF must be requested and a Positive Declaration be made by the Board for the proposed project. Mr. Bernard would like the Public Safety Committee to review and comment on this project.
Planning Coordinator Orffeo stated that he feels the Conservation Board will most likely recommend that the Town request a land donation in lieu of fees. He also feels the applicant may be asked to reduce the number of units being proposed for this project.
Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander discussed a letter that had been received from a concerned resident that detailed the problems that had been discussed years ago with this site, noting that the same ones exist today. It was confirmed that there are Federal wetlands on the site. A wetlands delineation will be submitted by the applicant. Mr. Ostrander also noted that the proposed project will impact snow, emergency vehicles, water pressure, sewer capacity and the amount of traffic in the area will double.
The Board requests that the project be forwarded to the Trails Committee Chairperson, Anne Bergantz for review and comment.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:33 P.M.
DATED: August 29, 2008 Respectfully Submitted,
REVIEWED: September 2, 2008 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
William McNamara,
Planning Board Chairman