West Seneca Town Board Minutes 10/17/2005

On the question, Town Attorney Timothy Greenan stated that there was some miscommunication as to when the bids were due and some bids were received after the 10:00 A.M. deadline. Therefore, the service contract for the Ice Rink would be rebid at a later date.

13-B   LEGAL NOTICES

1.   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 2341 UNION ROAD, BEING PART OF LOT NO. 294, CHANGING ITS CLASSIFICATION FROM C-1(S) TO C-1(S), FOR A SENIOR LIVING COMPLEX” in the Town of West Seneca, be received and filed.                (Clover Construction Management, Inc.)

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

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

Town Attorney Timothy Greenan read the recommendation of the Planning Board: “At its September 21, 2005 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the request for a special permit for property located at 2341 Union Road, being part of Lot No. 294, changing its classification from C-1(S) to C-1(S), for a senior living apartment complex, with the following stipulations: 1) a 20-foot wide paved access drive shall be constructed around the south side of the building to accommodate the fire company; 2) the access drive shall be within 35 feet of each dwelling unit; 3) the access drive shall have a minimum interior radius of 15 feet and a minimum exterior radius of 45 feet; 4) fire hydrants shall be located within 50 feet of each of the four exterior corners with the final location to be approved by Union Fire Company; 5) each sidewalk and island indicated on the site plan shall be curbed; 6) no lights shall be directed toward Greenfield Avenue. After review of the vote of the Planning Board members present at the September 21, 2005 meeting, the Town Attorney’s Office has determined that a majority of four votes was required for approval; therefore, the vote was corrected to reflect no recommendation.”

Mike Jordan of Clover Construction Management Inc. stated that they were actually two companies - Clover Construction that developed and built new properties and Clover Management that operated, administered and managed rental properties and homeowners’ associations. Clover was a WNY based company and the largest apartment owner/operator in WNY with over 2000 units locally. They also owned and operated an additional 3000 units in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Georgia and managed over 4000 condominium units in WNY for homeowners’ associations. Mr. Jordan stated that they developed a concept for affordable senior housing that addressed the need of lower middle-income seniors for housing in their communities. This concept was pioneered in West Seneca in 1999 with the 116-unit Seneca Pointe project located at 1187 Orchard Park Road. There were HUD 202 projects in communities where people earning less than 50 percent of the median income could qualify for subsidized housing and there were enriched retirement communities for higher income seniors with costs ranging from $1500 to $3000 per month. However, there was not enough affordable housing designed specifically for seniors. Mr. Jordan stated that the proposed project was designed specifically for seniors. All the units were joined into one building with interior corridors connecting all the units and community facilities. This allowed interior access to all parts of the building. The building was fully handicapped accessible, had elevator service to the second floor and all units were handicapped adaptable. Community spaces within the interior of the building included a lounge, manager’s office, and large community room off the main entrance, an exercise room, library, small community room, and four laundry rooms throughout the building. The front door had a security system that allowed guests to contact the tenant they were visiting. The tenant could then see who was at the front door on a television channel and release the door through their telephone. The building was divided into six fire areas and was fully sprinkled. There would be a full-time manager and an onsite full-time maintenance person. The building would be a two-story, wood frame, vinyl sided structure with 98000 square feet and 107 total units (62 two bedroom units and 45 one bedroom units). Twenty of the one-bedroom units (Type A) would have 610 square feet and rent for approximately $660 per month including heat and water. Each unit had a full bath, full kitchen with eating area and all appliances including a dishwasher, a large bedroom with a large closet, a living room that opened to an exterior patio or balcony, an exterior mechanical/storage closet, and a separate furnace and central air conditioning with the tenant controlling the thermostat. The remaining 25 one-bedroom units (Type C) were identical to the Type A units except they had 35 square feet more for a total of 645 square feet and the rent was $685 per month including heat and water. The 62 two-bedroom units were Type B with 805 square feet and the rent was approximately $775 per month including heat and water. Each unit had a full bath, full kitchen including appliances and dishwasher, one large

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

and one small bedroom with closets, a large combination living room/dining room area, a patio or balcony, and a mechanical closet for the heating equipment. Mr. Jordan commented that with all the units joined into one building it became a community unto itself. The residents had easy access to their neighbors and the community facilities within the building. Many of them no longer had a car because of health or economic reasons, and other residents are aware of this and help them out by taking them to the store, doctor’s appointments, etc. Residents also know when their neighbors are ill and stop to check on them. This sense of community and caring neighbors and friends allowed a person to age in place in the building far longer than they would be able to stay in an independent facility. Although they are tenants, the residents look at it as their home and generally stay until their health forces them to a greater level of care. Because of the low turnover, the building manager becomes more of a social director, arranging outings and gatherings for the occupants. Mr. Jordan referred to the proposed site and stated that the parcel was landlocked behind the Garden Village South plaza. There would be access to the site through easements to Union Road and he asked that the Town Board approved the easements in lieu of a dedicated street frontage. The total site was 5.68 acres and the building footprint was 1.13 acres with 2.2 acres for the paved area and sidewalks. The remaining 2.35 acres (41 percent of the parcel) would be green space. The plan indicated 128 exterior parking spaces and 27 garages for a total of 155 parking spaces. The landscaping plan showed 119 new trees and 365 shrubs and plants. Mr. Jordan stated that the plan submitted to the Town Board included all but one of the Planning Board’s comments and recommendations. A 20-foot drive was added around the building as requested but the drive was not able to be brought within 35 feet of each unit because that would have involved looping it through the back yard and would have conflicted with the storm water retention basin. Fire hydrants were located at each corner of the building as requested and all sidewalks and islands were curbed. No lights would be directed toward Greenfield Avenue. Mr. Jordan stated that modifications were also made to the fencing and landscaping. Each neighbor on Greenfield Avenue was polled to determine if they wanted a) their existing fence left alone, b) a new fence installed, or c) pine trees in lieu of a fence, and the plan indicated the neighbors’ choices. Mr. Jordan commented that the Seneca Pointe project was very positive for the town, and he also thought the proposed project would be.

Les Laux, Director of the Burchfield Village Patio Home Association, stated that residents had expressed some concern about the affect this project would have on the property values of their patio homes and the affect the retention basin would have on their properties.

Mike Harmon, Property Manager for the Burchfield Village Patio Homes, expressed concern about lighting facing the Burchfield Patio Homes and suggested that there be a fence or other buffer between the project and the patio homes. He questioned if a fence was required between commercial and residential property.

Councilman Osmanski advised that screening was required, but it could be a natural barrier rather than a wooden fence.

Mr. Harmon stated that the patio home residents did not discuss what type of screening they preferred and were only looking for something that would be pleasing to both parties. Mr. Harmon referred to the number of units proposed and questioned how many were actually allowed on a parcel of this size.

Mr. Greenan responded that the Town Code did not address this type of project, so he did not know how many would be allowed, but a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Councilman Osmanski noted that there was a comment made at the Planning Board that only about 50 units were allowed on this size parcel.

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

Dan Chavanne, 86 Greenfield Avenue, stated that his property abutted the proposed site and although the proposed apartments were beautiful, he felt the site was incompatible with the surrounding area. The property was rezoned in 1972 to accommodate a shopping plaza, and at that time, the residents of Greenfield Avenue had requested that the developer leave a 50-foot buffer zone between the plaza and their backyards. Since that time, the buffer zone was left undeveloped and Mr. Chavanne requested that it also be grandfathered in the proposed plan. The buffer zone was green space that the neighbors had maintained since 1972. Mr. Chavanne commented on the number of senior housing complexes in Gardenville and the additional burden this project would place on Union Fire Company. He questioned the status of the town’s Master Plan and thought that if that were in place the Town Board would have the tools and techniques to deal with this issue.

Dick Meyers, 1187 Orchard Park Road, stated that he lived in West Seneca for 40 years and moved to Seneca Pointe when it was built. He commented on how the residents of the senior apartments helped each other and formed their own community. He did not believe that the residents overused emergency services, but even if they did, a portion of their rent went to pay taxes for the emergency services. Mr. Meyers thought the proposed project was good for the town and encouraged the board members to approve it.

Ross Arundell, 30 Hybank Drive, District Manager for Clover Management, referred to Seneca Pointe and stated that Marrano/Marc Equity built $250,000 houses next to the project, so they were not concerned about the senior housing project decreasing their property values. There has never been a problem with lighting at Seneca Pointe and they are good neighbors.

Mr. Jordan stated that the lighting proposed for the eastern side of the property would face toward the project, not the patio homes. The Planning Board decided that a fence along the eastern property line would be inappropriate given that the Burchfield Village patio homes detention basin was located there and the grade dropped seven to eight feet to the proposed site. They thought leaving it open and more natural would be better than putting a fence up. Mr. Jordan stated that they were willing to plant additional trees in this area.

Councilman Graber questioned what type of lighting would be used for the project.

Mr. Jordan responded that all the lights around the perimeter of the exterior ring road would have shields on the backside of them to keep the light to the front side of the fixture.

Councilman Graber questioned why there would not be shields on all four sides to eliminate light pollution. The proposed parking area was similar to a plaza, and the board had required some developers to shield lights on all four sides in parking areas. This prevented light from spilling out in various directions and people are still able to see their vehicles.

Councilman Osmanski had some concern about the project being located so close to the plaza. There were two bars in the plaza and the spillover from the bars onto the front walkways at night created a lot of noise. Residents of the senior housing project might prefer to have it quieter at night. There was also a young kids dance club in close proximity to the proposed project and they had sporadic dances. Councilman Osmanski questioned how Mr. Jordan intended to handle complaints about these businesses.

Mr. Jordan stated that the bar in the Garden Village Plaza was somewhat far north of the proposed project and they were proposing fencing the entire north side of the property. He expected the teen club to be a good neighbor just as the senior project would be a good neighbor. A new entryway would be curbed and landscaped into and out of the facility to designate a pathway separate from the parking lot. This would be located on an easement from the adjoining property owner.

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

Councilman Osmanski questioned why the garages were placed all in one location rather than rimming the property with them.

Mr. Jordan responded that there was no room for garages on the other perimeters because there was a ten-foot requirement from the property line to the structure. They thought the proposed location was appropriate and also acted as a buffer between the project and the commercial use to the north.

Councilman Osmanski stated that there were certain amenities within walking distance of the project, but he was concerned that there were no sidewalks for the residents to safely walk on.

Mr. Jordan noted that other than Mr. Rathmann, no one on the Planning Board was in favor of a sidewalk. They intended to put a gate in the fence on the west side so that residents could access the walkway in front of the existing plaza and use that. If the plaza were to be redeveloped in the future to include a grocery store and drug store, they would provide access for the residents at that time.

Councilman Osmanski referred to the 50-foot easement area and questioned if the islands would be located within this area.

Mr. Jordan responded that the islands were partially located within the easement area and partially on the adjoining landowners’ property, but the property owner granted permission for these improvements. Clover Management also had a contract to purchase the property and building, but they would not want the property if the senior complex were not approved.

Councilman Osmanski suggested moving the concrete curbs totally off the easement and onto the adjoining property for a walking path.

Mr. Jordan responded that the problem with moving anything to the south was that they had eliminated parking spaces for the plaza to the minimum required by code. They would not be able to lose any more parking spaces.

Councilman Bove commented that there were cycles to everyone’s life and there were many senior citizens in this community. She thought this project would make available a different type of housing concept for the senior citizens. Councilman Bove was also concerned about the walkability issue and questioned if there was any way to incorporate sidewalks in the plan.

Mr. Jordan did not believe that sidewalks were an option and noted that typically residents of the senior housing projects were transported by vehicles rather than walking. There were sidewalks around the building from one end to the other for the residents to walk for exercise.

Councilman Hicks questioned if Clover Management would provide a van for transporting the residents.

Mr. Jordan responded that they would not be supplying transportation for the residents of the facility.

Councilman Osmanski questioned if West Seneca Fire District No. 2 was satisfied with the change in the plans even though the driveway would not be within 35 feet of each unit.

Brian Doster, Deputy Fire Commissioner with West Seneca Fire District No. 2, stated that they would have preferred that the drive be within 35 feet of each unit, but they were satisfied that it would at least circle the building.

13-B   LEGAL NOTICES

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

Mr. Greenan noted that the board members would have to address SEQR prior to the motion on the project and they would have to consider approval of access to the property by easement.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to issue a negative declaration under the NYS Environmental Conservation Law for purposes of SEQR with respect to the proposed senior living complex at 2341 Union Road.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to grant the request for a special permit for property located at 2341 Union Road, being part of Lot No. 294 changing its classification from C-1(S) to C-1(S), for a senior living apartment complex, with the following stipulations: 1) a 20-foot wide paved access drive shall be constructed around the south side of the building to accommodate the fire company; 2) the access drive shall have a minimum interior radius of 15 feet and a minimum exterior radius of 45 feet; 3) fire hydrants shall be located within 50 feet of each of the four exterior corners with the final location to be approved by Union Fire Company; 4) each sidewalk and island indicated on the site plan shall be curbed; 5) no lights shall be directed toward Greenfield Avenue; and further, grant approval of access to the property by way of the easement as shown on the plan rather than by the requirement of frontage on a public right-of-way.

On the question, Supervisor Clark stated that the taxes to be generated on this project were substantial. They would immediately pay all Special District taxes based on full assessment, including the Special District tax for the volunteer fire company, which amounted to approximately $16,050 in the first year. The property would generate property taxes each year starting at $33,000 in the first year and increasing to $165,000 by the tenth year. Supervisor Clark further noted that as part of the Rotary Club, he participated in Meals on Wheels and the route included a few residents of Seneca Pointe. He found Seneca Pointe to be a beautiful community that anyone would enjoy living at eventually at that point in their life. Supervisor Clark thought that the proposed project would be an excellent addition to the community and that more of them were needed.

Councilman Osmanski commented that the property was oddly shaped and was zoned for commercial use. It was his experience that owners of commercial property did not care about the back of their property. The front of the building usually looked nice to attract business, but there was garbage and other things behind the building. Councilman Osmanski favored the proposed development over a commercial building because the developer had to keep all four sides of the building nice in order to attract rentals. The grounds were usually kept very attractive on these types of developments and he thought the project could fit nicely in the neighborhood. However, Councilman Osmanski thought that the project could become a bad project if they did not follow through on the details. Lighting was a concern and details on the landscape plan would have to be done. Councilman Osmanski was also concerned about the walkability of the project. With the special permit process, the Town Board had the ability to place restrictions on the project, but he thought it would be too cumbersome to do at this meeting. Councilman Osmanski suggested that the board members make the approval of this project contingent upon a committee’s approval of a final landscape and lighting plan. They could work with the developer and receive comments from the adjoining property owners and residents of Burchfield Village. Planning Board member James Rathmann had worked on this type of committee before and Councilman Osmanski would also be on the committee. He further invited Councilman Graber to be on the committee to address the lighting issue.

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

Supervisor Clark thought it would be somewhat inappropriate for the board members to try to micromanage a very responsible developer’s project when they had obviously gone through great lengths in determining landscape and architectural design. He thought this was an excellent project and it would be unreasonable to add to their time delay and to not being able to obtain final approval with some financing deadlines. Supervisor Clark commented that Clover Construction was a proven solid developer that paid attention to detail and they were ready to invest $6 million into a project that had great merit.

Councilman Osmanski responded that he did not doubt that Clover Construction had put thought into the project, but at the Planning Board meeting Mr. Rathmann had pointed out that some of the trees they picked were not good choices and were inappropriate for the project. The committee would not necessarily choose the light standards, but the difference between a 10 and 20-foot light standard could make a big difference.

Mr. Jordan thought part of the problem might be that the board members were looking at plans that were pre-revisions from the Planning Board stage. Some of the things that were worked out at the Planning Board were not reflected on those plans. There was a revised landscape plan that accommodated most of Mr. Rathmann’s comments. The honey locust trees were changed and the fencing was changed to a board-on-board fence.

Councilman Graber questioned how many light standards there were for the project, their height, and the height of the building.

Mr. Jordan responded that there were ten light standards for the project and they were 25 feet high. The building was 28 feet high to the peak of the roof.

Councilman Osmanski thought that 25 feet was too high for the light standards.

Mr. Jordan stated that if the lights were too low they would lose their effect. If they are put up higher they could direct them with a shield.

Councilman Hicks questioned if Mr. Jordan would consider shielding the lights on all four sides.

Mr. Jordan responded that potentially there was not enough light between standards. There would be bright spots and then dark areas.

Councilman Graber thought that on the east side of the property that faced Burchfield Village, there should be shields on the north, south and east sides of the standards. On the Greenfield Avenue side the shields should be on the east, west and south sides of the standards.

Councilman Hicks questioned if Mr. Jordan would replace any trees or shrubs that died and add some trees if the neighbors felt the screening was not sufficient.

Mr. Jordan responded that they would replace any dead trees and shrubs and would be willing to add some trees if the neighbors did not feel the screening was sufficient. He thought the residents would be happy with the finished project and they would be happy during the construction process because they paid attention to noise, dirt, debris, etc., so they had a good relationship with the neighbors. They were willing to accommodate the little needs that came up during the course of the project.

Councilman Hicks agreed with Supervisor Clark that micromanaging the project was not the Town Board’s responsibility. Clover Construction had many projects in many municipalities and he had never heard of any problems.

13-B   LEGAL NOTICES

1.    (continued)

Councilman Osmanski stated that the Town Board was given the responsibility on a special permit to protect the neighbors and he thought that in this instance they were trusting the developer. They were able to be specific and add specific items, but they were leaving it up to the developer. Councilman Osmanski thought that the board members were leaving themselves and the residents open to problems.

Councilman Graber referred to the stipulations and suggested that a stipulation be added to the motion that no lights shall be directed toward the Burchfield Village patio homes.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to amend the motion to include one additional stipulation as follows: no lighting shall be directed toward the Burchfield Village patio homes.

*APPENDICES*

2.   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 REZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 677 HARLEM ROAD, BEING PART OF LOT NO. 134, CHANGING ITS CLASSIFICATION FROM R-60A TO C-2, FOR AN ICE CREAM STAND” in the Town of West Seneca, be received and filed. (John J. Szczypierowski & Susan M. Mayer)

Town Attorney Timothy Greenan advised that the petitioners had contacted the Town Clerk’s Office on Friday and indicated that they were withdrawing their application. The Town Clerk’s Office sent letters to the adjoining neighbors notifying them that the application was being withdrawn, but that interested individuals could still attend the meeting because it was too late to cancel the public hearing.

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

Charles Lickfeld, 244 Dwyer Street, lived directly behind the property in question and was opposed to the proposed ice cream stand.

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

Supervisor Clark noted that the rezoning application for 677 Harlem Road had been withdrawn.

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

3.    (continued)

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

Town Attorney Timothy Greenan read the recommendation of the Planning Board: “At its September 21, 2005 meeting, the Planning Board recommended denial of the request for a special permit for property located at 3596 Clinton Street, being part of Lot No. 43, changing its classification from R-60A to R-60A(S), for a six-unit apartment building.”

The petitioner, James Sorge, 446 North Davis Road, Elma, stated that his proposal met the lot size requirement, number of parking spaces, setback on streets and parking lot, and fencing. He commented that the area was a mixed use of residential and commercial and he thought a six-unit apartment building would fit in the neighborhood.

Councilman Osmanski questioned if Mr. Sorge had considered any other development for the site.

Mr. Sorge responded that he could build a two-family home on the property, but the property was properly zoned for a six-family apartment building. It only required a special permit.

Councilman Bove questioned if Mr. Sorge owned other multi-family dwellings.

Mr. Sorge responded that he owned other two-family dwellings.

Councilman Graber questioned Mr. Sorge’s familiarity with West Seneca and if he had a general understanding of the historical value of the area he proposed to build the six-unit apartment building.

Mr. Sorge responded that he had done quite a bit of new home building in West Seneca, and there were businesses in the area of the proposed apartment building, so he did not see a problem with the location.

Councilman Graber stated that there was a movement by the town in association with the proposed Master Plan to designate that entire area as a historical area.

Mr. Sorge noted that there was no moratorium on building in that area.

Councilman Osmanski stated that the area was mixed use, but the businesses had been there for a long time. The funeral home was newer, but it was very quiet and actually looked like a single family home.

Mr. Sorge understood that there were two apartments above the funeral home.

Councilman Osmanski stated that no plans were submitted showing what the outside of the building or landscaping would look like.

Mr. Sorge responded that there would be three units on the first floor and three on the second floor. The building would have vinyl siding.

Councilman Bove questioned if Mr. Sorge had approached any of the neighbors regarding his proposal.

Mr. Sorge stated that he had not visited any of the neighbors.

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

3.    (continued)

Councilman Bove questioned Mr. Sorge’s response to the Planning Board’s suggestion to convert the building to a four unit.

Mr. Sorge stated that anything over two dwellings needed to be sprinklered, so it was not cost efficient to only have four units.

Councilman Hicks questioned if there was sufficient space for parking.

Mr. Sorge responded that the parking area had eleven spaces including one handicapped space. This number met the requirement for six units.

Councilman Osmanski questioned if the number of units or the size of the building determined the required square footage.

Code Enforcement William Czuprynski advised that under the R-60 zoning 10,000 square feet was required for the first unit and 5000 square feet for each additional unit.

Councilman Graber questioned the 30-foot setback on Weigand Street and thought it should be 40 feet.

Mr. Czuprynski referred to the Zoning Ordinance for a corner lot and stated that a 30-foot setback was appropriate for Weigand Street with a 40-foot setback for Clinton Street.

Dominic Russo, 3580 Clinton Street, stated that he owns the property directly to the west of the proposed apartment building and he was co-owner of the property directly to the north on Weigand Street. Mr. Russo submitted a petition and requested a super majority vote from the Town Board based on the number of signatures on the petition.

Mr. Greenan advised that the petition would be sent to the Assessor’s Office for determination as to whether a super majority vote would be required.

Mr. Russo commented on the historic nature of the area and the proposed Master Plan and thought that a six-unit apartment building would change the character of the neighborhood. He lived in a 1929 Victorian home and did not believe that a six-unit apartment building was compatible with that. Mr. Russo questioned who owned the property with Mr. Sorge.

Mr. Sorge responded that Mike Grieble of Nigel Builders was co-owner of the property.

Mr. Russo stated that he had been in real estate 13 years and he thought the value of his properties would be diminished if this project were to be approved. He would not have purchased the property if he had known that a six-unit apartment building could be built at this location with a special permit. Mr. Russo questioned who did the drawings for Mr. Sorge.

Mr. Czuprynski responded that he did the drawings for Mr. Sorge, but he had no interest in the property.

Councilman Hicks noted the front entrance to the building was on Weigand Street and questioned why this building would have a Clinton Street address.

Mr. Sorge responded that when he bought the lot the address was 3596 Clinton Street, but he could change the address to Weigand Street. He would then have to change the setback on Weigand Street to 40 feet and there was room to do this.

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

3.    (continued)

Paul Goldsmith, 3578 Clinton Street, stated that his house was 100 years old and his taxes were $7000 to $8000 per year. He did not believe that a six-unit apartment building fit in the neighborhood and thought it would bring the property values down.

Mike McKay, 95 Orchard Avenue, stated that when he bought his home 14 years ago there was a horse behind the fence on this property. Although he understood that things changed over time, he did not believe that a six-unit apartment building should be constructed on this site. Mr. McKay noted that this property could be seen within the frame that is located in Burchfield Park. He was in favor of progress, but suggested that Mr. Sorge look at another project for this corner, possibly something smaller in size. Mr. McKay thought that the Town Board should delay their decision on this item until after the Master Plan is discussed and they had a better understanding of it. He noted that there were 14 children under the age of 15 that played in backyards abutting the proposed site, and was concerned about the type of individuals that would be attracted to these one and two bedroom units and the possible danger to the children. Mr. McKay questioned if it was common for a town employee to do drawings for a developer.

Supervisor Clark stated that he could not be involved in any manner with respect to any approvals.

Jonathan Buchanan, 107 Theresa Court, stated that he had just completed his Eagle Scout project for the Burchfield Center and he thought the proposed apartment building could ruin the Burchfield Park. He thought the Burchfield Park was a beautiful park and did not want to see anything approved that would harm it in any way.

Sandy Berger, 83 Weigand Street, stated that she liked the park like setting of the neighborhood and the fact that all the neighbors knew one another. She did not believe a six-unit apartment building fit in the neighborhood and commented that there were no sidewalks but the children road their bikes and skateboards in the street and felt safe and secure. Mrs. Berger thought that the apartment building would create problems and change the character of the neighborhood.

Theresa Russo, 3580 Clinton Street, thought that it was a conflict of interest for someone that was affiliated with Town Board Proceedings to also be connected with a person that was proposing a building that was controversial in the neighborhood. She questioned if Mr. Sorge had received any assurances as to the project being approved.

Mr. Czuprynski stated that he designed 99.9 percent of all site plans in the Town of West Seneca. As Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Czuprynski enforced the Zoning Ordinance, so developers would question him on the town codes. He informed them on the setbacks, parking requirements, etc. and part of that was designing the project. Mr. Czuprynski stated that he had no other interest in this project.

Elena Drabik, 1755 Clinton Street, stated that she was part owner of 20 Weigand Street and was concerned about her property value diminishing. She noted that the homes in that area were all owner-occupied and well maintained. Mrs. Drabik thought that a six-unit apartment complex built by someone that did not live in the community might not be maintained the same as the surrounding properties. She questioned whom the neighbors would go to if they were not happy with the maintenance of the property. Mrs. Drabik also commented that transients would be living in the apartments.

Mike Albarella stated that he owned the former Burchfield home and he did not believe that the proposed apartment building would be as attractive as the current condition of the property.

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

3.    (continued)

Brenda Judkiewicz, 101 Orchard Avenue, stated that she lives behind the proposed apartment building, and she could not picture how the apartment building and parking would fit on the site with the building set back 40 feet from Weigand Street. Ms. Judkiewicz’ home was built in 1923 and she did not think the design of the apartment building went with the neighborhood. There was a natural swale on the property that was helpful to the area when there was heavy rain and creeks backing up. Ms. Judkiewicz opposed the special permit for the six-unit apartment building and preferred to see the neighborhood maintained in its current state.

Evelyn Hicks, 276 Seneca Creek Road, opposed the special permit for the apartment building because she did not believe it fit in with the character of the neighborhood or would be beneficial for the community.

Mike Shimskey, 20 Weigand Street, stated that he had rented his home for two years and liked the area so much that he had talked to his landlord about purchasing the property. However, the proposed apartment building would change the neighborhood. Mr. Shimskey questioned who would take care of the property and if there would be a fence around the lot. He was also concerned about the parking lot being located next to his home and the type of renters that would live there.

Dave Monolopolus, 97 Lexington Green, stated that he grew up on Orchard Avenue and questioned how the garbage would be handled for the apartment building.

Amy Carpenter, 406 Woodward Crescent, questioned if Mr. Czuprynski received additional compensation, other than his salary from the town, for drawing the site plans.

Mr. Czuprynski responded that he drew plans as part of his job as Code Enforcement Officer.

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

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Bove, to deny the request for a special permit for property located at 3596 Clinton Street, being part of Lot No. 43, changing its classification from R-60A to R-60A(S), for a six-unit apartment building, based on the following: 1) no plan was submitted for consideration by the board members and the petitioner’s description of the building went against the character of the neighborhood; 2) the draft comprehensive plan for the town identifies this area as a culturally and historically significant area and without any plans they could not determine how the building would fit into the neighborhood; 3) the developer would not consider reducing the number of units to fit in the neighborhood because it was not cost effective and his only consideration was maximizing the return on his investment; 4) Clinton Street from Weigand Street to the church was strictly single family or two-family residential and the apartment building would not fit; 5) the driveway as submitted at 25 feet does not meet the requirement of the code at 30 feet.

Councilman Graber suggested amending the motion to include that the proposal would have a negative impact on the surrounding community, specifically because it was a six-unit apartment building and that was contrary to the area. It was the intent of the Town of West Seneca to preserve the historical character of the Gardenville area and the apartment building would change that character. Councilman Graber further commented that the proposal as submitted failed to meet the minimum front yard setback requirement.

13-B   LEGAL NOTICES

3.    (continued)

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Bove, to amend the motion to include: 6) it was the intent of the Town of West Seneca to preserve the historical character of the Gardenville area and a six-unit apartment building would change that character; 7) the proposal as submitted failed to meet the minimum front yard setback requirement.

Supervisor Clark abstained from voting on this issue because Mr. Sorge was a client of an accounting firm that he had a financial interest in.

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

Supervisor Clark stated that the purpose of this public hearing was to receive any comments from the public on the utilization of block grant funds. The Town of West Seneca belonged to a consortium along with other communities, and Supervisor Clark sat on the competition board for community projects to review the value of individual Western New York projects. In the past, the Town of West Seneca received funding for curb cuts, handicapped access to the West Seneca Library, handicapped doors at the West Seneca Senior Citizens Center, and other projects. Supervisor Clark invited the public to address the board with any suggestions for use of block grant funds.

Evelyn Hicks, 276 Seneca Creek Road, stated that the sidewalks along Clinton Street immediately west of Union Road were in need of repair and suggested that this be submitted for one of the projects. She further noted that there were many houses in that area not being maintained.

Supervisor Clark responded that Clinton Street was not a town road and would not qualify for block grant funds. Further, block grant funds could not be used to benefit individual private property rehabilitation.

Supervisor Clark proposed the following projects to be submitted for competition: 1) completion of the fitness facility at the West Seneca Senior Citizens Center; 2) reconstruction of Wenro Place and Forrestal Lane; 3) construction of Buffalo Creek Access Park, including a boat launch, fishing and picnic areas. With regard to the reconstruction of Wenro Place and Forrestal Lane, Supervisor Clark wanted to ensure that the residents of those streets would be agreeable to the proposed improvements.

Town Engineer George Montz stated that residents of Wenro Place had petitioned the town stating that they did not want sidewalks. Forrestal Lane already had sidewalks, but they were in disrepair and would be completely replaced.

13-B    LEGAL NOTICES

4.    (continued)

Councilman Bove stated that the Buffalo Creek Access Park project was originally suggested because West Seneca citizens had not used that area for a very long time. There was a gated area in the front where people went to get compost, but they did not get to enjoy the beautiful Buffalo Creek. Over the years, the Buffalo River had been coming back and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation was now stocking it with fish. Councilman Bove hoped they could develop a fishing and boating park through a parks development grant, funds from Assemblyman Schroeder, or money from the federal government, and she understood that this proposal met the criteria for community development funds.

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

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to submit the following projects to the Erie County Community Development Block Grant Consortium: 1) $90,000 for completion of the fitness facility at the West Seneca Senior Citizens Center with the Town of West Seneca contributing a maximum of $90,000 in cash or in-kind goods and services; 2) $90,000 for reconstruction of Wenro Place and Forrestal Lane to Indian Church Road with the Town of West Seneca contributing $90,000 in cash and in-kind goods and services; 3) $90,000 for construction of Buffalo Creek Access Park, including a boat launch, fishing and picnic areas with a contribution of in-kind goods and services from the Town of West Seneca.

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

Town Engineer George Montz stated that the Erie County Water Authority requested that the town replace approximately 9300 feet of 8-inch pvc watermain along the north side of Seneca Creek Road between Union Road and Lein Road. This was due to the extensive leak history of the watermain. The average cost based on an amortization period of 15 years was under $35 per year for an average 100-foot wide lot. Mr. Montz noted that this project would ensure that the water supply system along Seneca Creek Road was more reliable.

No comments were received from the public.

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

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to adopt the attached resolution approving an increase and improvement of the facilities of Water District No. 1 at a maximum amount not to exceed $655,000.00 in the Town of West Seneca.

*APPENDICES*

13-B   LEGAL NOTICES

5.    (continued)

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the issuance of serial bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $655,000 offset by any funds received from the United States of America, the State of New York, the County of Erie, and/or local grants for said object or purpose or redemption of the town’s obligation issued therefore, pursuant to the local finance law to finance said purpose and delegating the power to issue bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the sale of such bonds to the Town Supervisor.

*APPENDICES*

6.   Proofs of publication and posting of legal notice: “OF THE ADOPTED BOND RESOLUTION, SUBJECT TO PERMISSIVE REFERENDUM, AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS ROADS IN THE TOWN OF WEST SENECA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMTIED TO, DAVIS ROAD, ERWIN ROAD, BRADWOOD ROAD, AND CAMBRIDGE AVENUE, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCLUDING ALL PRELIIMINARY WORK AND NECESSARY EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND SITE WORK AND ALL PRELIMINARY COSTS AND COSTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,388,000, SAID AMOUNT TO BE OFFSET BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND/OR LOCAL GRANTS RECEIVED” in the Town of West Seneca, received and filed.

13-C    COMMUNICATIONS

1.   Supervisor Clark re Endorsement of Eaton Archaeological Project

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Supervisor Clark, to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Supervisor to sign a municipal endorsement for the Eaton Archaeological Project.

*APPENDICES*

2.   Supervisor Clark re Halloween parade

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to approve the request of Southgate Plaza to hold their annual Halloween Parade on Sunday, October 23, 2005 with assembly behind the West Seneca Town Hall at 11:30 A.M. and the parade starting at 12:00 P.M.

3.   Town Attorney re Snow & Ice Removal Contract with Erie County

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Bove, to authorize the Supervisor to execute the 2005-2007 Snow and Ice Removal Contract with Erie County.

4.   Town Engineer re Rolling Ridge Subdivision – Phase I, final acceptance

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Graber, to accept the Rolling Ridge Subdivision, Phase I, Sublot Nos. 1-5, 41-48, and 70-72 completed by Russo Development Inc., 6553 Boston State Road, Hamburg, NY 14075, under Public Improvement Permit No. 05-01.

13-C   COMMUNICATIONS

5.   Town Engineer re Leydecker Road Reconstruction Project, National Fuel relocation fee

Motion by Councilman Hicks, seconded by Councilman Graber, to approve the National Fuel Gas invoice in the amount of $44,937.51 for relocating gas mains and restoring house services on the Leydecker Road Reconstruction Project, Job No. L-0404.

Councilman Osmanski abstained from voting on this item because of his employment with National Fuel.

6.   Town Engineer re Leydecker Road Reconstruction Project, hydrant addition in WS Fire District #4

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to approve the additional annual hydrant fee of $731.40 to Erie County Water Authority for five additional hydrants to be installed along the west side of Leydecker Road in West Seneca Fire District No. 4 as part of the Leydecker Road Reconstruction Project, Job No. L-0404.

7.   Town Engineer re Purchases requiring Town Board approval

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Graber, to authorize payment of the following vouchers for the Engineering Department:

8.   Highway Supt. re Military leave of absence for William Geary

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Supervisor Clark, to approve a military leave of absence for William Geary from his position as Laborer in the Buildings & Grounds Department effective October 3, 2005 through October 2, 2006 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel, noting that Mr. Geary would be continuing to work when available.

13-C   COMMUNICATIONS

9.   Highway Supt. re Termination of part-time laborers in Bldgs. & Grounds Department

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to terminate the following part-time laborers in Buildings & Grounds effective October 17, 2005:

and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

10. Highway Supt. re Purchases requiring Town Board approval

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to authorize payment of the following vouchers for the Highway Department:

11.   Highway Supt. re Purchases requiring Town Board approval

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to authorize payment of the following vouchers for the Highway Department:

12.   Chief Gehen re Bid award for police vehicle

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Supervisor Clark, to award the bid for a new unmarked police vehicle to McCarthy Ford, 900 Maple Road, Elma, NY 14059 at their low bid price of $9239.35.

13.   Chief Gehen re Bid date for police motorcycle

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to set a bid date of November 7, 2005 at 10:00 A.M. for receipt of bids on the purchase of one (1) new Harley Davidson police motorcycle.

13-C   COMMUNICATIONS

14.   Chief Gehen re Purchase of two rifles

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to authorize the purchase of two (2) DPMS AP-4 rifles with accessories from DPMS, 3312 12th Street, St. Cloud, Minnesota 56304, at a cost of $1239 each for a total of $2478.00, noting that this purchase is less than the New York State contract pricing and was comparatively priced to the cost of other police rifles from two other manufacturers.

15.   Chief Gehen re Military leave of absence for Officer Sean Donohue

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Bove, to approve a military leave of absence for Police Officer Sean Donohue effective November 11, 2005 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

16.   Chief Gehen re Appointment of Officer Robert Sporysz as Police Lieutenant

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to terminate Robert J. Sporysz as Police Officer effective October 17, 2005 and appoint Robert J. Sporysz as Police Lieutenant effective October 18, 2005 at an annual salary of $68,328.63 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

17.   Chief Gehen re Status change for part-time Public Safety Dispatchers to part-time seasonal

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Graber, to change the status of the following part-time Public Safety Dispatchers to part-time seasonal effective October 1 – 31, 2005:

and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

18.   Chief Gehen re Status change for part-time Senior Clerk Melissa Hender to part-time seasonal

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to change the status of part-time Senior Clerk Melissa Hender to part-time seasonal effective November 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

13-C    COMMUNICATIONS

19.   Chief Gehen re Purchase requiring Town Board approval

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to authorize payment of $1700 to George’s Collision for repairs to Car #24.

On the question, Councilman Bove questioned if this was an accident where the town was able to recover the cost from another insurance company.

Chief Gehen responded that this was an accident where the town was responsible, so the cost of repairs would have to come out of the budget.

20.   Senior Citizens Supervisor re Status change for part-time Food Service Helper June Edie

Motion by Councilman Osmanski, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to change the status of part-time Food Service Helper June Edie to part-time seasonal effective October 17, 2005 through March 17, 2006 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

13-D   REPORTS

13-E    DEPARTMENTAL PRESENTATIONS

Town Historian Ferol Webb described her duties as Town Historian and mentioned the many artifacts and documents of historic value that could be viewed at the West Seneca Historical Society on Mill Road. Mrs. Webb encouraged residents to visit the museum, which is open every Tuesday and the first Sunday of each month.

Town Clerk Patricia DePasquale thanked Mrs. Webb for helping her with research for the historical calendar each year.

ISSUES OF THE PUBLIC

DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON MILL ROAD

Sarah Plapus, 287 Mill Road, referred to a drainage problem on her property and questioned if the town had received her letter asking for assistance in resolving the problem.

Town Engineer George Montz stated that Greenhill Terrace was an older subdivision and at the time it was developed they did not include a lot of the rear yard drainage that was now included in subdivisions today. The ground sloped from Greenhill Terrace west toward Mill Road and there was a very gradual rear yard swale that was proposed to drain from the north to a receiver at the end of the corner where the two subdivisions came together. Over a period of years, the swale filled in and it was not functioning properly under heavy rains. Some of the water came down the north line of Mrs. Plapus’ property and ran out toward Mill Road. Principal Engineer Assistant Gary Bommer had spoken with Highway Supt. Patrick Finnegan this date and there were no easements in the rear yard swale area; however, they had discussed installing a 6-inch underdrain from the Mill Road underdrain up to the right-of-way line where they would install a Type B receiver. With that the resident would be able to extend something up the side yard line and pick up additional drainage.

ISSUES OF THE PUBLIC

DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON MILL ROAD    (continued)

Mrs. Plapus did not believe she should have to go to the expense of installing drain tile when the property owner to the north had filled in the swale with dirt so the water would not go beyond that. Nor did Mrs. Plapus think it was fair because the drain tile would also pick up water from the swale that was on her neighbor’s property.

Town Attorney Timothy Greenan stated that this was a private drainage issue between two neighbors and the town had no jurisdiction to get involved in it. Mrs. Plapus would have to pursue this matter with her private attorney.

Councilman Hicks suggested that Mr. Montz send the neighbor a letter advising her that she illegally filled in the swale and it needed to be taken care of.

Mrs. Plapus further stated that her neighbor had contacted Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski to complain that Mrs. Plapus had truckloads of dirt brought into her yard and Mr. Czuprynski came right over. However, when Mrs. Plapus complained about her neighbor filling in the swale Mr. Czuprynski was not quick to respond.

Mr. Czuprynski stated that Mrs. Plapus’ neighbor contacted his office concerning the height of her fence and he went to check it out. The height of the fence was fine, but while he was there he got in the middle of a neighbor conflict regarding the drainage. Mr. Czuprynski advised the neighbors that drainage was not under his purview and he would send the Engineering Department out to investigate the problem.

REQUEST FOR COPY OF SOCCER ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT

Diane Siminski, Parkside Drive, stated that she had previously requested a copy of the agreement between Buffalo/Niagara Sports and the West Seneca Soccer Association, but still had not received it.

Town Attorney Timothy Greenan responded that Dave Zygaj of the soccer association had promised to provide a copy of the agreement and was supposed to meet with him this past weekend; however, he had to cancel the meeting due to a death in the family. The meeting was rescheduled and Mr. Zygaj would be providing Mr. Greenan with a copy of the agreement and a report on the soccer complex. Mr. Greenan stated that he would contact Ms. Siminski upon receipt of this information and also forward copies to the Town Board members.

REQUEST TO MOVE SOCCER GAMES TO DIFFERENT FIELD

Diane Siminski, Parkside Drive, repeated a previous request that soccer games be played on the fields farthest away from the Parkside Drive residents so the residents could enjoy their backyards. She did not believe this was an unreasonable request and questioned why the issue could not be resolved.

Councilman Osmanski agreed that there was no reason for games to be played on the soccer fields closest to Parkside Drive when the other fields were available. He thought that they would have to intervene at the soccer park to resolve the problem.

STATUS OF ICE RETENTION STRUCTURE

Jane Kester, 60 East & West Road, questioned the status of the ice retention structure.

Town Attorney Timothy Greenan stated that he had recently visited the ice retention structure site and the cylinders had been installed. The scheduled completion date was December 1, 2005.

ISSUES OF THE PUBLIC

STATUS OF ICE RETENTION STRUCTURE    (continued)

Councilman Hicks stated that Town Engineer George Montz had taken pictures of the ice retention structure and they were posted on the town’s website. The project was moving along, but it was delayed a little due to the flooding that occurred.

DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON ORCHARD PARK ROAD

Bill Ernst, 790 Orchard Park Road, stated that his property was flooded last September and would have been flooded again this September if the Highway Department had not brought sandbags. In 23 years of living at this location, Mr. Ernst was never before flooded except for January thaws. There was a small berm on the back of his property and he wanted to build it up to stop the water from coming too close to his house. This would even his property out with his neighbor on either side. Mr. Ernst was informed that he could not build up the berm because his property was located in a flood zone and changing the topography might hinder someone else farther down the line.

Town Attorney Timothy Greenan advised that soil could not be brought into a flood plain, but it could be balanced within the flood plain. He suggested that Mr. Ernst hire an engineer to design a plan that would move soil from one area to another within the site.

Mr. Ernst stated that Town Engineer George Montz had told him to do this, but there would be no guarantee that the plan would be approved. Based on the fact that he had never experienced flooding in the past, Mr. Ernst thought that there was a problem farther down the creek creating this problem.

Mr. Greenan stated that the most recent rainstorm was the highest water they had in Cazenovia Creek in a number of years. The water flooded into Mill Road Park and a lot of places that it normally did not flood.

Mr. Montz stated that he had met with Mr. Ernst, looked over his property, and gave him several ideas on how to waterproof his house, such as installing glass block windows. By doing this, he could raise the ground around his house on three sides, and the fourth side was already protected. They also discussed raising the elevation of the berm, but Mr. Montz told him that he would have to hire an engineer because they would need a stream analysis to determine if the elevation of the floodwater was an acceptable raise. It was not an easy thing to raise the berm and you could be accused of creating flooding on adjoining neighbors’ properties.

Mr. Ernst commented that when the dance studio on the corner of Orchard Park Road and Ridge Road was built years ago, the site was filled in with bricks, etc. He did not understand why he could not also fill in his property.

Councilman Graber responded that a number of years ago they did not have the analysis they had today, but now whenever something was done in a flood plain, certain federal guidelines had to be followed.

INCREASED ACTIVITY AND MAINTENANCE ISSUE AT SOCCER COMPLEX

Frank Russo, Parkside Drive, commented on the increased activity at the soccer complex in the fall and the number of private groups using the soccer fields. When the soccer complex was originally proposed, the residents were told it would be a neighborhood park, but Mr. Russo thought it was much more than a neighborhood park. He further noted that the berm had not been cut in months and the only grass being cut were the soccer fields.

ISSUES OF THE PUBLIC

CANISIUS HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT ON CLINTON STREET

Don Grasso, 64 Lexington Green, referred to the proposed Canisius High School project on Clinton Street and stated that Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski had stated that he would consider the project under the zoning for amusements. Mr. Grasso did not believe the project was an amusement, but noted that the property was zoned R-65 and there were no amusements included under the R-65 zoning. He thought that the property would have to be rezoned for the project, and since there was no zone within the Town Code that included athletic fields, a zone would have to be created with all the requirements and restrictions of an athletic field.

Mr. Czuprynski stated that there was a mistake on the SEQR report and the property was actually zoned R-100A, which included school use.

Mr. Grasso responded that the project was not a school it was an athletic facility.

Mr. Czuprynski advised that it was an accessory use or part of a school.

Mr. Grasso noted that Mr. Earsing was required to get a special use permit for a driving range in the M-1 zone on Clinton Street. He questioned why a special use permit was necessary.

Mr. Czuprynski responded that the Zoning Ordinance specifically stated that a driving range required a special use permit in an M-1 zoning.

Town Attorney Timothy Greenan advised that Father Higgins of Canisius College had written a letter to the town stating that they were a public secondary accredited school and the use of the property was part of their curriculum. Under the New York State Education Law, they were required to provide physical education.

Mr. Grasso stated that the proposed project was not Canisius’ physical education facility; it was their extracurricular football/athletic field. They would be using the facility for practices after school, games, etc. Canisius was not required by law to have extracurricular activities at school. Mr. Grasso thought that the town was trying to find every way possible for the facility to locate in West Seneca by attempting to find a zoning that it fell under. He thought that the town should be fighting for what the residents wanted. Mr. Grasso questioned if the building permit for the facility had been issued yet.

Mr. Czuprynski responded that no building permit had been issued for the facility.

PRESENTATION OF COMMUNICATIONS BY BOARD MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

PURCHASE OF IN-CAR VIDEO SYSTEMS

Motion by Councilman Hicks, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to authorize the purchase of two (2) Kustom Digital Eyewitness in-car video systems with 900 mhz audio transmitter, base station, rear console camera, and microphone kit with shipping and handling from Kustom Signals, Inc., 9325 Pflumm, Lenexa, Kansas 66215-3347 at a cost of $4410 each for a total cost of $8820.00, noting that Kustom Signals is the sole source provider for the Eyewitness video system and this purchase will continue with the replacement of the older in-car video systems that are experiencing various mechanical breakdowns and failures.

PRESENTATION OF COMMUNICATIONS BY BOARD MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

TERMINATION OF DEBBIE GIBSON AS PART-TIME ACCOUNT CLERK TYPIST

Motion by Councilman Hicks, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to terminate Debbie Gibson as part-time Account Clerk Typist effective July 13, 2005 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

CORRECTED TITLE FOR CAROL BEYER, PART-TIME OUTREACH WORKER

Motion by Councilman Hicks, seconded by Councilman Graber, to correct the appointment of Carol A. Beyer from part-time Family Mediator to part-time Outreach Worker at a rate of $11 per hour effective July 13, 2005 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

ICE RETENTION STRUCTURE PICTURES ON WEBSITE

Councilman Hicks thanked Town Engineer George Montz for taking pictures of the ice retention project and Records Management Clerk James Manley for putting them on the website.

RELEASE OF EASEMENT AT 186 WESTCLIFF DRIVE

Motion by Councilman Graber, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to abandon the existing five-foot wide permanent town and County of Erie easement along the north property line of 186 Westcliff Drive from a point five feet east of the east edge of the carport to a point five feet west of the west edge of the carport.

OUT-OF-DISTRICT SEWER AGREEMENT WITH NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY

Motion by Councilman Graber, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to enter into an agreement with the New York State Thruway Authority for an out-of-district sewer agreement.

APPOINTMENT OF ERIC FINBAR AS PART-TIME SEASONAL CLERK

Motion by Councilman Graber, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to appoint Eric Finbar as part-time seasonal Clerk in the Assessor’s Office at a rate of $6.90 per hour effective October 24, 2005 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Councilman Osmanski stated that a public hearing was scheduled for January 9, 2006 at 7:30 P.M. for input on the draft comprehensive plan, and he asked for ideas on how to publicize the hearing to generate input from the citizens.

PRESENTATION OF COMMUNICATIONS BY BOARD MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED ON 2006 BUDGET

Supervisor Clark announced the public hearings on the 2006 Special Districts and Preliminary Budget scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the Court Room.

RESIGNATION OF PAUL NOTARO FROM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to accept the resignation of Paul Notaro from the Zoning Board of Appeals effective January 10, 2005 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

APPOINTMENT OF EDWIN HUNTER TO W.S. PLANNING BOARD

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Graber, to appoint Edwin P. Hunter to the West Seneca Planning Board effective October 17, 2005 through June 4, 2010 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

On the question, Supervisor Clark stated that Mr. Hunter was an extremely bright and imaginative lawyer. He was very versed in property matters and Supervisor Clark thought he would be an excellent addition to the West Seneca Planning Board.

CONSULTING AGREEMENT FOR TRAINING IN ASSESSOR’S OFFICE

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Graber, to enter into a consulting agreement with Dawn Aydelotte at a rate not to exceed $10 per hour through December 31, 2005.

On the question, Town Attorney Timothy Greenan stated that Acting Town Assessor Robert Hutchison had suggested hiring Ms. Aydelotte who had worked with him on computer and technical matters in the Town of Hamburg. Ms. Aydelotte would assist with training personnel in the Assessor’s Office.

SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, on the recommendation of outside counsel and the Town Attorney, to settle the longstanding litigation against the Town of West Seneca under the Clean Water Act in the amount of $15,000.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 P.M.

PATRICIA C. DEPASQUALE, RMC/CMC
TOWN CLERK