1-B    LEGAL NOTICES

1.  Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Supervisor Clark, that proofs of publication and posting of legal notice: "OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4518 CLINTON STREET, BEING PART OF LOT NOS. 329 AND 330, CHANGING ITS CLASSIFICATION FROM M-1 TO C-2, FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOME" in the Town of West Seneca, be received and filed.       (Chad Pavlicek)

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to open the public hearing.

Town Attorney Tim Greenan read the recommendation of the Planning Board: "At its December 20, 2000 meeting, the Planning Board recommended denial of the request for a rezoning for property located at 4518 Clinton Street, being part of Lot Nos. 329 & 330, changing its classification from M-1 to C-2, for a residential home."

The petitioner was not present.

Supervisor Clark stated that the petitioner, Mr. Pavlicek, had contacted him this afternoon and informed him that the application for a rezoning was being withdrawn.

Mr. Greenan stated that his file did not reflect the application being withdrawn. The Planning Board minutes indicated that Mr. Pavlicek did not appear and the public hearing was scheduled for this evening. In the past, the Town Board had taken it on a case by case basis whether or not to allow withdrawal of the petition. If withdrawal was permitted, a subsequent petition could be filed within one year. If the Town Board denied the petition, a similar request could not be presented within one year.

Supervisor Clark understood that Mr. Pavlicek was not proceeding with the property transaction.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Supervisor Clark, to close the public hearing.

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Graber, to deny the request for a rezoning for property located at 4518 Clinton Street, being part of Lot Nos. 329 and 330, changing its classification from M-1 to C-2, for a residential home.

On the question, Councilman Osmanski thought that rezoning this manufacturing property to residential would cause future problems and complaints because of its location next to the Buffalo Air Park and a construction company.

2.   Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Supervisor Clark, that proofs of publication and posting of legal notice: "OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1976 RIDGE ROAD, BEING PART OF LOT NO. 296, CHANGING ITS CLASSIFICATION FROM M-1(S) TO M-1(S), FOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND CAR SALES" in the Town of West Seneca, be received and filed.       (Majed Ishtiyyeh)

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Supervisor Clark, to open the public hearing.

Town Attorney Tim Greenan read the recommendation of the Planning Board: "At its December 20, 2000 meeting, the Planning Board recommended denial (4 - 2 with 1 abstention) of the request for a special permit for property located at 1976 Ridge Road, being part of Lot No. 296, changing its classification from M-1(S) to M-1(S), for automotive repair and car sales, due to the existing traffic problems on Ridge Road and the uncertain use of the side driveway."

The petitioner, Majed Ishtiyyeh, 138 Greenmeadow Drive, presented an updated site plan with changes as suggested by the Planning Board. One of the driveways onto Ridge Road was eliminated and the other was enlarged to 25 feet wide. The bushes in the landscaping plan were changed to six-foot trees and a handicapped ramp was added to the front of the building. Mr. Ishtiyyeh stated that he was leasing to own the property and intended to paint the building and update the property.

Councilman Osmanski questioned why the side driveway was not changed to 25 feet.

Mr. Ishtiyyeh responded that the side driveway was private, so it did not have to be 25 feet wide.

Supervisor Clark questioned if there would be any cars displayed for sale on the lawn. He further questioned Mr. Ishtiyyeh's experience in this line of work.

Mr. Ishtiyyeh responded that there would be 15 cars for sale and they would be parked as indicated on the site plan. There would also be three parking spaces for customers and two for staff. Mr. Ishtiyyeh noted that he had been in this line of work for eight years and was currently operating his own business in Lancaster. He was interested in moving to West Seneca because the building he was leasing was sold and his lease was up in March.

Councilman Hicks questioned if Mr. Ishtiyyeh planned to expand in the future and what type of work would be done on the cars.

Mr. Ishtiyyeh stated that the property was large enough for his business. He needed the garage to detail the vehicles and make minor repairs. There would be no painting or body work done.

Supervisor Clark questioned if there would be a dumpster on the property.

Mr. Ishtiyyeh stated that he never had a need for a dumpster at his present location. His operation did not generate much garbage.

Mr. Hicks questioned the hours of operation.

Mr. Ishtiyyeh responded that the business would be open Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M. until 6:00 or 7:00 P.M., Saturday 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. and closed on Sunday and holidays.

William O'Brien stated that he was the present owner of the property and purchased it in 1982. His property taxes were $7000 per year and for the last two or three years he had not had any tenant. Mr. O'Brien understood that other prospective tenants were turned down by the town for some reason, and he noted that this request was only for a special permit, not a change in zoning.

Mr. Ishtiyyeh stated that the Planning Board recommended denial of his request based on heavy traffic on Ridge Road, but his business did not generate much traffic. He estimated not more than seven customers per day.

Larry Coppola, 1987 Ridge Road, stated that he lives in a row of residential homes across from this property and there were some quiet businesses at this location throughout the years, but the neighbors were concerned about the type of work that would be done at this business and the possible noise. At the present time no one wanted to buy their homes, and although they hoped that the area would continue to be developed, Mr. Coppola thought that the current proposal for this property might interfere with the development of Ridge Road. Developers who wanted to put significant retail space and other development in had approached the residents three times in the last seven years, and he hoped that the Town Board would consider the long-term plan and take action consistent with that type of development.

Supervisor Clark stated that there were similar types of businesses in the area and across the street.

Mr. Coppola thought that the area would be more geared toward restaurants and retail space than automotive uses.

Mr. Greenan stated that because the property was located in an M-1 zoning and only a special permit was needed for the proposed use, the Town Board was limited in their ability to deny the request. They could, however, place reasonable restrictions on the granting of the special permit. The Town Board could limit the number of cars on display, require that work be done indoors, require green space improvements, etc.

Councilman Osmanski questioned how many cars were permitted to be displayed on a lot.

Building Inspector Bill Czuprynski stated that the Town Code does not specify a certain number of square feet per car, but it does specify that a parking space should be 9' x 18'. Mr. Ishtiyyeh's plan to display 15 cars for sale would be feasible.

Councilman Osmanski questioned if there was any lighting on the building.

Mr. Ishtiyyeh responded that there was no lighting on the building, but there was existing lighting in the front lot and the architect had told him it was sufficient to light the entire parking lot. He did not plan to add any lighting.

Councilman Osmanski commented on the minimal green space and thought that some trees along Ridge Road would help to upgrade the site. He suggested planting two trees in the front of the parking spaces along Ridge Road and one at the east end of the lot.

Councilman Hicks wanted to ensure that there would be no scrap vehicles on the property and questioned how trade-ins would be handled. He further questioned if there was a fence on the left side of the building.

Mr. Ishtiyyeh stated that he presently took trade-ins to the auction two days each week on Monday and Thursday. There was no fence on the left side, but there was a guardrail between this property and the carpet store next door.

The board recessed for five minutes.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to close the public hearing.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to approve the request for a special permit for property located at 1976 Ridge Road, being part of Lot No. 296, changing its classification from M-1(S) to M-1(S), for automotive repair and car sales, with the following stipulations: 1) strict adherence to the proposed site plan dated 12/05/00 (Rev. 1), which includes the ten foot green space area and landscaping; 2) enhancement to the landscaping to include the addition of three Shademaster Honey Locust trees between the new 25 foot driveway and the east property line along the town right-of-way; 3) a maximum of 15 vehicles offered for sale at one time; 4) no cars elevated on ramps above the pavement; 5) no body work, painting, or major automotive repairs is permitted and maintenance functions such as oil changes and minor engine work are permitted indoors only; 6) no sale of vehicles in excess of 2-ton gross vehicular weight; 7) the building will be painted a neutral color to the neighborhood; 8) the driveway and parking lot must be repaved by August 1, 2001; 9) no display of cars with hoods up.

On the question, Councilman Osmanski stated that he agreed with Mr. Coppola about the Ridge Road corridor, and they have had big plans for it that they were working to make come to fruition. In the meantime, they could not stop people from developing their properties as they saw fit. He did not think a used car lot was the best use of the property, but the zoning allowed it and Mr. Ishtiyyeh seemed like he would cooperate and try to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible.

Supervisor Clark did not believe that this proposal could reasonably be denied and it could be challenged if they were to deny it. He was also concerned that Mr. O'Brien could successfully challenge his assessment if the property is without a tenant for a number of years.

Councilman Hicks stated that the Town Board was forced to make restrictions on used car lots due to past experiences with them. He hoped that Mr. Ishtiyyeh would comply with the restrictions and succeed at this location.

*APPENDICES*

3.   Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, that proofs of publication and posting of legal notice: "OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 195 FISHER ROAD, BEING PART OF LOT NO. 359, CHANGING ITS CLASSIFICATION FROM M-1 TO M-1(S), FOR A BILLBOARD" in the Town of West Seneca, be received and filed.       (Dennis Ryan)

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to open the public hearing.

Town Attorney Tim Greenan read the recommendation of the Planning Board: "At its December 20, 2000 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the request for a special permit for property located at 195 Fisher Road, being part of Lot No. 359, changing its classification from M-1 to M-1(S), for a billboard, conditioned upon the following: 1) a maximum height of 40 feet; 2) maximum square footage of 672 feet; 3) the petitioner must comply with any provisions in the proposed billboard ordinance that are not contrary to the first two conditions; 4) location of the billboard to be as indicated in the application." Mr. Greenan noted that he had received a call from the City Attorney Pat Deren of the City of Lackawanna and she expressed concern over the proposed location of the billboard and its proximity to the NYS Thruway right-of-way.

Attorney Ralph Lorigo, 101 Slade Avenue, represented the petitioner, Dennis Ryan, and stated that Mr. Ryan was formerly with Lamar Advertising and currently the owner of Trans Ad Outdoor Media. Mr. Ryan tried to put up two to three billboards per year, which he finances, builds himself, and leases. Mr. Ryan had a contract to purchase the Bakery Salvage Corporation property located at 195 Fisher Road, a one-acre lot zoned M-1 that was vacant since the early 1980's when a fire destroyed the building. Mr. Lorigo presented pictures of the property from different views and noted that Mr. Ryan intended to clean up the garbage on the site, construct the billboard, and develop the site with a commercial building. The closest billboard was over one mile away and the closest residence was over 850 feet. The proposed billboard would cost $100,000 and would add $100,000 in assessed valuation to the town without requiring any town services. Mr. Lorigo stated that Mr. Ryan had agreed to follow the proposed billboard ordinance with two exceptions. The height of the billboard would be 40 feet and the square footage would be 672 feet, the same as all other billboards. The billboard would be located more than 1250 feet from the next billboard on the same side of the road and would not block the view from the road. Display lighting would not be on between midnight and 5:00 A.M, would not move or flash, would not glare upon adjoining properties and would not exceed a maximum of 1.5 foot candles.

Councilman Hicks questioned the length of time necessary to clean up the property.

Mr. Lorigo responded that it would take 30 days to close on the property and clean up could take place in the early spring. He suggested June 15, 2001 as a deadline for clean up, but the billboard would be constructed as soon as possible. Mr. Lorigo further noted that the property was at least 1500 feet from the city line of the City of Lackawanna and there was no obligation for the Town of West Seneca to notify them. He was aware of the problem that Lackawanna had and stated that Lackawanna had approved a billboard for Mr. Ryan, but the location was within a scenic seaway and there were some federal regulations. Three other permits were granted and billboards built within the last 1½ years that could be seen from the proposed site.

Mr. Greenan stated that Mrs. Deren had indicated that there was some problem with the distance of the billboard to the NYS Thruway and that there should be prior notification of the Thruway Authority.

Mr. Lorigo stated that Mr. Ryan had spoken to the NYS Department of Transportation and they verbally told him there was no problem with this site.

Councilman Graber questioned if there would be any light emitting from behind the billboard.

Mr. Lorigo responded that display lights would only be on the side that faces the NYS Thruway.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to close the public hearing.

Motion by Councilman Graber, seconded by Supervisor Clark, to approve the request for a special permit for property located at 195 Fisher Road, being part of Lot No. 359, changing its classification from M-1 to M-1(S), for a billboard, with the following stipulations: 1) maximum height of 40 feet; 2) maximum 672 square feet; 3) the petitioner must comply with any provisions in the proposed billboard ordinance that are not contrary to the first two conditions; 4) location of the billboard to be as indicated in the application; 5) the property will be completely cleaned up by June 1, 2001; 6) no display lighting between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M.

On the question, Councilman Osmanski thought that billboards were aesthetically damaging to all neighborhoods and did not believe that 850 feet was far enough away from a residential home considering the size of the billboard. He also thought that the billboard would have a huge visual impact on the residents of Fisher Court.

Mr. Lorigo commented that billboards were a legitimate form of advertising and were generally used by the local advertiser as opposed to national advertisers. Billboards could not be prohibited in any town, but could be restricted to M-1 areas such as the proposed site.

Councilman Graber stated that he was opposed to this billboard until he visited the site and found out how isolated it was. He did not believe the billboard would negatively impact the residents and the revenue was much needed.

Councilman Osmanski commented on the height and size of the billboard and the brightness of the lights. He felt that the aesthetic negative impact on a neighborhood outweighed the tax dollars received from a billboard.

*APPENDICES*

4.    Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, that proofs of publication and posting of legal notice: "OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 745 INDIAN CHURCH ROAD, BEING PART OF LOT NO. 67, CHANGING ITS CLASSIFICATION FROM R-50 TO R-50(S), FOR A 50-UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENT BUILDING" in the Town of West Seneca, be received and filed.    (Belmont Shelter Corp.)

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to open the public hearing.

Town Attorney Tim Greenan read the recommendation of the Planning Board: "At its December 20, 2000 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval (6 - 1) of the request for a special permit for property located at 745 Indian Church Road, being part of lot No. 67, changing its classification from R-50 to R-50(S), for a 50-unit senior citizen apartment building, with the following stipulations: 1) a hard surface paved perimeter road with a minimum width of 16 feet; 2) the area reserved for parking on the proposed development plan will continue to be dedicated for parking rather than landscaped so in the event parking is necessary it will be available, noting that this does not include a hard surface requirement at this time if the applicant is able to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals."

Mike Riegel of Belmont Shelter Corporation, 1195 Main Street, Buffalo, stated that the Town Board had approved this project one year ago at a different site located at 1125 Indian Church Road, but they were not able to proceed due to the conditions that were placed. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) granted an extension to their funding commitment and they were able to find another site at 745 Indian Church Road. The building would be the same as previously proposed, but they were restricted on its placement due to the wetlands on site. Less than one-tenth of an acre of wetlands would be disturbed, so no permits were required from the Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Environmental Conservation. The only variances required would be for the 16-foot paved driveway for emergency access and the parking. Mr. Riegel stated that senior citizen complexes do not require a lot of parking and HUD's requirement was only .75 parking spaces per unit. They were proposing one space per unit and had earmarked 25 spaces for future parking if it were to become necessary.

Nelson Allan, 759 Indian Church Road, stated that the proposed building would be located behind his home with the parking lot next to his home and he thought it would decrease his property value. Mr. Allen did not believe that 50 parking spaces were sufficient and thought that the overflow would park on Indian Church Road. He did not believe a variance should be granted for the access road because the Town Code stipulated 20 feet and emergency vehicles would have a difficult time maneuvering through the site if it was only 16 feet wide. Mr. Riegel had stated at the Planning Board meeting that there were 150 trees on the site, but Mr. Allen noted that there was closer to 500 trees. Belmont planned on cutting down 102 trees for the project, but there was nothing in their plans about replacing them. Mr. Allen thought that if the building were placed back farther on the site with the parking lot behind it, the project would be less objectionable. Belmont did not want to move the building back because of the wetlands, but Mr. Allen noted that the property owner had brush hogged the entire site seven years ago and dumped over 50 truckloads of fill into the wetlands. Mr. Allen was opposed to the project, which he felt would be an eyesore to the neighborhood and commented on the lights from the parking lot that would shine in his windows. He thought that the original location was more suitable for the project because it was in an area of condominiums and apartment buildings.

Mark Stolarski, 65 Brian Lane, represented his father, Phil Stolarski of 771 Indian Church Road and some of his neighbors. Mr. Stolarski stated that a project was approved seven years ago for this site for single family, low-income housing, but the project never proceeded and Mr. Stolarski felt that the property should have reverted back to its original zoning of light industrial. The residents had requested a complete environmental impact study on the previous project and Mr. Stolarski requested that one also be done for this project. He noted that the short environmental form stated that there was no delineation of waterways, but the Town of West Seneca map and NYS highway aerial map both show that Cherry Creek is located on the site. Mr. Stolarski stated that the site was part of the Meyer Road wetlands and it flooded every spring and fall. He commented on the tax exempt status of the project and did not believe this was in the best interest of the town. Mr. Stolarski thought that the project would devalue their homes and affect the sale price of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that the Town Board approved the location of the project and a tentative construction date was scheduled prior in the fall of 2000, prior to any of the residents receiving any information on it. Planning Board member Bob Niederpruem was the only member to vote against the project and was also the only member to visit the site. Mr. Stolarski felt that if the property was going to be removed from the tax rolls, it should be made into a nature preserve for the public to enjoy. He was concerned with the removal of trees, snow removal, and the impact the proposed project would have on the sewer district, and further noted that the project would not generate any new jobs. Mr. Stolarski stated that the residents and the Town Board had no say as to who would reside in the apartments and could not give West Seneca senior citizens and veterans priority over others. He did not believe that landscaping for the project would be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood because it was federally funded. Mr. Stolarski further commented that there was no bus routes or sidewalks for the seniors to use and was concerned over the impact the project would have on the fire company.

Geraldine Simoneit, 740 Indian Church Road, stated that she purchased her home five years ago and had been calling with complaints for three years because of the flooding from the proposed site that was breaking up her driveway. Mrs. Simoneit commented that there were no stores in the area, no hospitals, no shopping centers, and no theaters within walking distance for the seniors who would live here. She was also concerned about the increase in traffic on Indian Church Road and thought that it would cause more accidents in the area.

Gail Allan, 759 Indian Church Road, stated that she enjoyed looking out her window and seeing the wildlife, and she did not want to have to look at an apartment building.

Dan Shanahan, 16 Cresthaven Drive, stated that he has lived in his home for 30 years and commented that the proposed site always flooded. He noted that there were underground springs on the property and did not believe this was an appropriate site for the project.

Mr. Riegel stated that the percentage of seniors in West Seneca was higher than any other town in Erie County, and the federal government funded the project because of they recognized the need for senior housing. An exhaustive search was performed in an effort to find a suitable site for the project in West Seneca.

Councilman Osmanski stated that a short and long form and a complete environmental impact statement was completed for this project. A thorough wetlands delineation was also completed and he noted that Cherry Creek was not recognized as a protected stream. Councilman Osmanski further stated that a tree survey was submitted and was on file in the Building Inspector's office. A tree replanting plan was proposed, but had not yet been approved. Councilman Osmanski stated that the Planning Board had approved the 16-foot driveway, and he did not believe that Mr. Mendola would have voted for the project if he was not satisfied with the driveway, considering his fire fighting experience.

Mr. Riegel stated that the was a lot of discussion on the access driveway and he had agreed to attempt to make the driveway wider.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to close the public hearing.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to approve the request for a special permit for property located at 745 Indian Church Road, being part of Lot No. 67, changing its classification from R-50 to R-50(S), for a 50-unit senior citizen apartment building with the following stipulations: .

*APPENDICES*

5.   Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, that proofs of publication and posting of legal notice: "OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WEST SENECA REGULATING VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC - CHAPTER 38 TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU" in the Town of West Seneca, be received and filed.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to open the public hearing.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Wroblewski, to close the public hearing.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Wroblewski, to amend the ordinance of the Town of West Seneca regulating vehicles and traffic - Chapter 38 Traffic Violations Bureau as submitted, with an effective date of March 15, 2001.

*APPENDICES*

6.    Proofs of publication and posting of legal notice: "OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE TRAFFIC ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WEST SENECA AS FOLLOWS: ADDITION OF §115-9A (153) PARKING PROHIBITED IN DESIGNATED LOCATIONS - ON BIRCHWOOD AVENUE FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF CENTER ROAD AND BIRCHWOOD AVENUE TO A POINT 1275 FEET NORTH ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF BIRCHWOOD AVENUE" in the Town of West Seneca, received and filed.