Board Meeting Minutes 09/09/2010
WEST SENECA TOWN OFFICES WEST SENECA PLANNING BOARD
1250 Union Road Minutes #2010-09
West Seneca, NY 14224 September 9, 2010
Chairman Robert Niederpruem Jr. called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge to the Flag.
ROLL CALL: Present - Robert Niederpruem Jr., Chairman
Joseph Ciancio
Gerald Greenan
Donald Mendola
Anthony Nigro
Jim Rathmann
Joseph Sherman
Robert Pinnavaia, Code Enforcement Officer
Andrew Reilly, Planning Consultant
Wendy Weber-Salvati, Planning Consultant
Shawn Martin, Town Attorney
Absent - None
Chairman Niederpruem read the Fire Prevention Code instructing the public where to exit in case of a fire or other emergency.
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Rathmann, seconded by Mendola, to approve Minutes #2010-08 of August 12, 2010.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
OLD BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
2010-A
A public hearing to consider a request from Walter Kolkiewicz for preliminary approval of the proposed Victoria Estates Subdivision located on Seneca Creek Road for 22 lots.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to open the public hearing.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
Walter Kolkiewicz stated his plan to build 22 single family homes, four of which will face Seneca Creek Road.
Mr. Mendola stated that they had asked the engineer for the project to indicate on the grading plan that every property line has a swale to detour water to the outside perimeter of the subdivision, but the plan only showed arrows pointing.
Mr. Kolkiewicz stated there will be swales in between the lots.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati stated that Town Engineer George Montz reads the Planning Board minutes and will know this is a concern and ensure that it is addressed.
Chairman Niederpruem noted that the rear of the cul-de-sac lots were supposed to be denoted as a conservation easement area.
Mrs. Salvati agreed and stated everything that falls from the top of the bank down to the center of the creek line will be in the conservation easement area. Mr. Kolkiewicz’s consultant, Keith Marquis, was asked to present a plan that showed the line for the conservation easement and indicated the minimum lot size for each of the lots. To date they had not received a submittal.
Planning Consultant Andrew Reilly questioned if Town Engineer George Montz had indicated this project will require the 4:1 mitigation.
Mrs. Salvati responded that she had not discussed this project with Mr. Montz, but based on what he said with regard to the new DEC policy, any project in the town that needs public sewer extension will be subject to the 4:1 mitigation. She will send Mr. Marquis a letter tomorrow reiterating what is needed and that they will need it by the next meeting.
No comments were received from the public.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Sherman, to table this item until the next regular Planning Board meeting.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
SPR2010-08
A request from Wal-Mart Real Estate for site plan approval for property located at 2400 Seneca Street for shopping center renovation for a 115,000 +/- sf building, including demolition (replacement building), parking, buffer fence, utilities, sidewalks, driveway improvements, new traffic signal and other typical site improvements.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the SEQR process was started at the last Planning Board meeting and that was not yet complete. The petitioner was asked to make several changes to the plan and they had received information on that.
Project Engineer Jim Basile reviewed the changes made to the site plan. The sidewalk on the western and northern portion of the parking lot was removed and a sidewalk was provided in the center for pedestrian access directly from Seneca Street into the building. This is a 5’ wide sidewalk with landscaped islands on either side. A sidewalk from Burch Avenue was added for pedestrians to cross to the center access. The Edson Street pedestrian entrance on the northern portion of the property was closed off and the eastern entrance will remain open with sidewalk improvements along Edson Street between those two points. The Manhassett Street entrance in the rear will be closed for safety and security reasons because of the loading dock and a gated access installed. Landscaping along the rear property line has been increased to help buffer the sound and 10’ high walls will be installed on the loading docks. The building was also flipped to line the sidewalk up more directly with the center of the building, so the location of the loading docks was also flipped.
Chairman Niederpruem questioned if they had met with the local fire department, and if so, were any changes made as a result of their input.
Mr. Basile stated that the Town Engineer met with the fire department and reviewed the plan and changes that were made. They were satisfied with the site layout and only asked that some of the fire hydrants be relocated and that was done.
Mr. Rathmann suggested an island barrier at the entrance to aid in traffic safety.
Mr. Basile stated that they were very close on the parking ratio and this would take more parking away. There will be stop signs at the entrance.
Mr. Rathmann thought it was better to eliminate a few parking spaces. He further recalled a resident requesting pedestrian access from Mt. Vernon into the site and asked if any consideration had been given that.
Mr. Basile responded that they would have to propose another crosswalk across the driveway and that could be a safety concern.
Mr. Rathmann questioned if Wal-Mart will retain maintenance of the parcel of land for pedestrian access from Manhassett Street and Chairman Niederpruem asked the same about Edson Street.
Mr. Basile stated that they will maintain both of these accesses.
Chairman Niederpruem questioned if there will be lighting along the access to Edson Street.
Mr. Basile responded that they were proposing five or six 30” bollard lights along the sidewalk.
Mr. Reilly questioned if there were any improvements proposed for the Seneca Street sidewalk.
Mr. Basile stated that they were proposing to improve the sidewalk from the Seneca Street driveway to the next intersection to the south.
Mr. Mendola wanted to ensure that the surrounding residents did not have a problem with the lighting. He further referred to the sidewalk on the south side of the entrance road from Seneca Street and thought it should be at least five feet wide. Mr. Mendola also questioned what kind of lighting will be along the sidewalk.
Mr. Basile stated that the existing lighting will be replaced with LED lighting and that will be consistent throughout the site. He will ensure that the sidewalks are five feet wide.
Mr. Nigro questioned if the store will have a garden center with outdoor storage of materials and Mr. Basile responded that there will be no garden center.
Gary McAmey, Senior Project Manager with Bergmann Associates, stated that he is the architect that will be guiding the project from inception to completion. A lot of time was spent developing the concept and they were very proud of the building. He hoped the community would get involved in, appreciate it, and also be proud of it. They had several goals when the project was developed, one of which was to develop a concept that would improve what was currently on the site. They also wanted to promote sustainable design and green architecture, proper use of products, energy savings, etc. Mr. McAmey stated that they wanted to change the typical image of big box architecture by bringing it down so it’s not a big imposing structure and create a more pedestrian inviting atmosphere. He referred to the covered canopy that was very inviting and helps get people in and out of the elements. There are also window openings that open up into more public accessible areas. The building signage is
limited. There is an internally illuminated LED Wal-Mart sign and a small sign at the entrance to the recycle center. The building is earthtones and contructed of an exposed aggregate precast panel with split-faced concrete block in the pedestrian areas. Mr. McAmey stated that the store will be very inviting even at night. They use cut off fixtures and do not allow light to spill over to adjacent properties. The level of lighting in the parking lot is appropriate and as pedestrians approach the building there are low level lighted bollards along the walkway that help guide them to the doors. Indirect lighting is used on the canopy and there are benches for sitting under the canopy. There is a seasonal area with benches, a flagpole, and an iconic tree which is a tree species that is indigenous to the area. The roof is light colored to help reflect the sun in the summer and reduce air conditioning costs. Sky lights are used extensively for daylight harvesting and there are controls tied to the indoor lights so as the sunlight brightens the electric lights drop. LED lighting is used on the interior store fixtures. The floors are burnished concrete so they no longer have the tiles and glues that have high VOC’s (volatile organic compounds). Wal-Mart also has an incredible recycle program and almost nothing goes to the landfill anymore. They started a program where they donate large amounts of food to local food banks, not expired foods but foods that are long before their expiration date. A new process will be instituted very soon where any waste organic food will go to a composter. This will be a sealed container so there will be no odor or mess.
Mr. Ciancio questioned if the façade had been used elsewhere.
Mr. McAmey responded that there were versions of the façade that had been used, but not this exact one.
Chairman Niederpruem questioned the height of the building and how that compared to the new Wal-Mart on Transit Road in Lancaster.
Mr. McAmey responded that the height was about 28’ at the front corners. He did not know how that compared to the Lancaster store. They changed the way the roof slope works and there is a siphonic roof drain system so the building has a high point in the middle, slopes to the sides, smaller drains, etc. and this keeps the building height down a little. He thought the average height on some of the older prototypes was about 32’ on the front.
Mark Piotrowski of Bergmann Associates stated that he was involved with the Lancaster store and confirmed that the front was about 32’ feet.
Mr. Sherman questioned if Wal-Mart’s risk management department had ever discussed putting security cameras on the parking lot light standards.
Mr. McAmey stated that they had several building mounted security cameras across the front of the building but he was not sure about the parking lot.
Mr. Piotrowski thought they might have security cameras in the parking lot because the location was an urban area.
Planning Consultant Andrew Reilly stated that some of the neighbors questioned the height of the fencing and he directed Wal-Mart to not do anything that would require a variance. It was Wal-Mart’s policy that no RV’s or campers be parked overnight in the parking lot and the town would like to see that enforced. Mr. Reilly noted that some of the residents along Edson Street questioned removal of that entrance and he stated that by removing the entrance and improving the sidewalks on Edson Street the residents are given direct access to the front of the building and they do not have to walk through the parking lot. By doing this, they do not need sidewalks along the back of the residents’ properties, which would create grading problems, so they will have green space between the parking lot and the back of the lots. Mr. Reilly stated that there was an issue brought up about the Burch Avenue and Manhassett Street intersection and this was turned over to the Town Board for their attention because it was not an issue for Wal-Mart. The lighting plan meets the town’s ordinance and there is no spillage onto adjoining properties. Snow storage was discussed and the snow may have to be removed from the site at times during the season. There were issues with signal coordination and the town will work with the city to resolve that. The town will also work with the city and get their approval on the entrance design and sidewalk improvements on Seneca Street. Mr. Reilly referred to the sewer capacity issue and stated that Wal-Mart can do mitigation or they might be able to bring their sewers into the City of Buffalo sewers.
Mr. Basile was aware of their options and will be working on this with Town Engineer George Montz.
Sandra Kozurkiewicz, Edson Street, stated that the parking lot is behind her house and there was never a problem with the previous stores at this location. She could not see installing another island that will take away from the parking.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the concept was to slow the traffic down when it comes in from Seneca Street to make it safer for pedestrians.
Mrs. Kozurkiewicz suggested a speed bump.
Mr. Rathmann responded that everyone regrets speed bumps after they are installed. He thought an island was the best solution to slow the traffic down and noted that it would only eliminate about six parking spaces.
Mrs. Kozurkiewicz further commented on the condition of the existing building and looked forward to getting rid of an eyesore and having a new Wal-Mart in its place.
Linda Toy, Burch Avenue, questioned if there will be a barrier at Grace Street for the sidewalk and Mr. Reilly advised that it will be a pedestrian crosswalk.
Doris Irlbacher, Burch Avenue, stated that she works in one of the stores in the strip plaza and 100 percent of the customers are in favor of this project. She thanked Wal-Mart for putting together a great project and welcomed them to the neighborhood.
William Masterson, Seneca Street, asked if security cameras could be placed along the driveway from Seneca Street into the parking lot to make it safer.
Mr. Piotrowski stated that the cameras on the building are directed toward the parking lot and the driveway and pan the area every 30 seconds.
Robert Luke, Mt. Vernon Street, supported the project and was in favor of a pedestrian entrance from his street.
Vince Talty, Manhassett Street, questioned if Wal-Mart will be closing the vacant lot next to his home and Chairman Niederpruem confirmed that they were.
Ann Ehinger, Executive Director of the Greater South Buffalo Chamber of Commerce, endorsed the project and commented on how the other businesses on Seneca Street will benefit from it and residents will benefit from the 300 new jobs it will bring. She congratulated the architect on the design of the building and suggested they support local artists and purchase their artwork to display on the walls. Ms. Ehinger noted there were many 501(C)(3) organizations in West Seneca and South Buffalo that would benefit from having board participation or recognition and Wal-Mart could bring a lot to those organizations.
Carol Blando, Burch Avenue, was thrilled that something will be done with the eyesore and thanked Wal-Mart for choosing this location.
Mr. Reilly reviewed the SEQR environmental assessment form, Phase II and explained that the Planning Board would have to table this item because the 30 day timeframe had not elapsed. However, they will be calling a special meeting to act on this item.
Mike Kloc, Ridge Road, noted that if Wal-Mart sells oil they must collect and store waste oil. He questioned if there was a place for this.
Mr. McAmey stated that there is an area for a storage tank for waste oil and it is secured under lock and key.
Chairman Niederpruem commented on the suggestion for a deflection island at the Seneca Street entrance and stated that this has been a staple for safety reasons at shopping malls built over the last ten years. He was in favor of it even if they had to sacrifice a few parking spaces. Chairman Niederpruem further referred to the neighbor’s request for a sidewalk from Mt. Vernon and stated that the positive was that this would be an access point for the neighbors, but the negative was that there will be a crosswalk on a main entrance and green space will be lost.
Attorney Kelly Pronti stated that a 10’ setback is required between a commercial and residential area so the sidewalk could not be within that area.
Mr. Rathmann questioned the type of screening for the loading dock.
Mr. Basile responded that there will be arborvitaes and junipers.
Mr. Reilly noted that the screening for the loading dock will be on the Town Board agenda at their September 20th meeting. He suggested that Mr. Basile submit a blow up of that area to the Town Board and highlight the 10’ walls, fence, and landscaping.
Motion by Niederpruem, seconded by Greenan, to convene a special meeting of the Planning Board on September 23, 2010 at 7:00 P.M.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Ciancio, to table this item until the September 23rd special meeting.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-B
A public hearing to consider a request from Wm. Schutt & Associates, P.C. representing Marrano/Marc Equity for preliminary approval of the proposed 10-lot Caldwell Drive Subdivision.
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Rathmann, to open the public hearing.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
Chairman Niederpruem stated that this item was before the Planning Board last month and the members expressed their sanitary sewer concerns at that time.
Dave DePaolo, Executive Vice President of Marrano/Marc Equity Corporation, and Robyn Cierniak of Wm. Schutt & Associates addressed the Planning Board on the proposed Caldwell Drive subdivision. This will involve subdividing the frontage on an existing roadway that was developed two years ago. It is the required secondary access out of the south end of Princeton Estates that connects to Nancycrest Lane to the west. The road exists, the water system is in, and they will be subdividing 10 lots along a portion of the roadway to the east side of the power lines. The proposal before the Planning Board was for the subdivision of lots, sanitary sewer work, and drainage required for the yards. Mr. DePaolo submitted a letter received from the Erie County Division of Sewer Management indicating that they will have to meet the 4:1 mitigation requirement and noted that the mitigation will involve repair of one sewer lateral.
Mr. Mendola referred to the sanitary sewer plan and noted that if another manhole was added they would not be encroaching as bad on private properties.
Mr. DePaolo stated that they would take this suggestion under consideration.
Mr. Mendola further stated that another hydrant will be needed across from Lot #7 or in that general area.
Ms. Cierniak stated that this was discussed with Erie County Water Authority and the Engineering Department, but full engineering had not yet been completed.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the Planning Board would normally receive a letter from Town Engineer George Montz stating that he reviewed the plan and the petitioner is in agreement with mitigation, but they had not received anything.
Mr. DePaolo stated that they have no choice but to mitigate and meet the requirements of the county’s program.
Ms. Cierniak stated that at the last meeting it was stated that everything was designed in working with Mr. Montz and they provided county verification. Mr. Montz had verbally and by e-mail confirmed he was in agreement with the county verification.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati stated that she spoke with Mr. Montz this date and he understands what the county is asking for and agrees with that, but he also indicated that the DEC needed to weigh in on this. The DEC is aware and has approved the implementation program that the county is undertaking, so it’s up to the Planning Board to decide how they want to move forward.
Planning Consultant Andrew Reilly stated that the DEC never had input on projects like Wal-Mart, etc., but now they are looking for more input. Mr. Reilly noted that preliminary plat approval does not guarantee approval; they still have to get all their regulatory approvals. He suggested they proceed with the public hearing and see if there were any other concerns from the public.
No comments were received from the public.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Rathmann, to close the public hearing.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
Motion by Ciancio, seconded by Rathmann, to authorize the town planner to prepare a negative declaration for approval of the preliminary plat at the next regular Planning Board meeting.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
NEW BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
2010-07
A request from Christopher Wood, PE for a special permit for property located at 300 Langner Road, being part of Lot Nos. 293 & 337, changing its classification from M-1 to M-1(S), for indoor self storage facilities.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the Planning Board has learned that this project does not need a special permit; only site plan approval is required. Town Attorney Shawn Martin advised that the Planning Board should postpone any final decision until the next meeting after the item is correctly advertised for site plan approval.
Joseph Palumbo of Carmina Wood represented Sovran Self Storage and stated their proposal to expand the self-storage facilities at the existing site with three 15,000 sf self-storage buildings, 38 parking places, and 40 RV storage parking stalls. One of the buildings will be built right away and the other two are proposed for the future, but they were looking for approval of the entire site plan.
Chairman Niederpruem noted there was no architectural rendering of the buildings so the Planning Board did not know what they will look like. Other issues were the screening, buffering, lighting, etc. He questioned if these were internal storage buildings.
Mr. Palumbo responded that they were internal storage buildings with only two or three points of access to each building. The entire site is gated and there will be a security gate at the entrance on Langner Road. The three buildings will have electric and gas supplied for heat and light, but no sinks or restrooms so they will not have to meet any Division of Sewer Management regulations. The buildings will be climate controlled and there will be multiple storage units inside each building.
Mr. Mendola referred to the southwest corner and questioned where the two end sections of the storm sewer went.
Mr. Palumbo responded that currently a storm sewer came across the site and discharged into Smokes Creek. The detention system will meet NYS SPDES criteria. The storm drainage will be controlled to a lesser volume than the current one. They were not aware of any wetlands on the property.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the Planning Board will need a wetlands delineation.
Mr. Sherman questioned if the residential buildings will be taken down and Mr. Palumbo stated that they had already been demolished.
Mr. Rathmann questioned if all the parking will be constructed at this time since two of the buildings were being proposed for the future.
Mr. Palumbo responded that they intended to develop parking for the entire site, including parking for the storage buildings and the RV parking.
Planning Consultant Andrew Reilly suggested a phasing line for the project indicating what will be built and how it will work if the other two buildings are not built.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati noted that the landscape plan shows landscaping being installed on top of trees they were supposed to be saving.
Mr. Palumbo responded that they intended to save as many trees as possible along the roadway, but it was hard to decide which will have to go until construction actually starts.
Mr. Sherman questioned what the buildings will be constructed of and Mr. Palumbo responded that they will be a type of metal pole barn similar to a “Butler” building and they will be climate controlled.
Mike Anticola, Langner Road, stated that his house is located across from this property. He questioned if the entrance/exit points will be in line with his driveway and if the operation was 24/7. He was especially concerned about the heavy traffic on Langner Road and noted that the shoulders of the road were very narrow.
Mr. Palumbo stated that the main entrance will remain at its existing location. The additional entrance will be gated and have an automatic switch when a car approaches. He did not know if this will be a 24 hour operation and Chairman Niederpruem advised that they will need that information.
Motion by Niederpruem, seconded by Mendola, to table this item until the next meeting pending receipt of the following information that is required before acting on this item: 1) wetlands delineation; 2) number of trips in/out of the property and location of entrance/exits; 3) drainage information; 4) architectural rendering of the buildings with landscaping; 5) updated survey.
On the question, Mrs. Salvati suggested that the landscape plan be revised to include a landscape buffer along the south property line.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-08
A request from D.R. Chamberlain Corporation for a special permit for property located at 216 Orchard Park Road, being part of Lot No. 282, changing its classification from C-2 to C-2(S), for a new vehicle storage facility.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that along with the application the Planning Board received a deed, a full environmental assessment form, a survey, and a site plan.
Bill Wincott of D.R. Chamberlain Corp. represented Ray Laks Motor Vehicles and stated their proposal to construct a new car storage lot on vacant property at 216 Orchard Park Road. Mr. Laks was currently renting several properties around town to store his vehicles. The lot will be secured with a fence and the gate will be at the end of the driveway to allow trucks to pull off the road rather than unloading on Orchard Park Road as they currently do. There will be low level security lighting. They planned to pave the parking area with an impervious material similar to the Rich Stadium lots.
Chairman Niederpruem questioned the drainage planned for the site.
Robyn Cierniak of Wm. Schutt & Associates stated that they have been working closely with Town Engineer George Montz on this project and he recommended that the existing topography for the site be maintained. They are not required to do any detention at this site, so storm water will be collected in a series of catch basins and piping that takes it to a hydrodynamic separation unit for water quality purposes and discharge to Cazenovia Creek. This was under the recommendation of Mr. Montz.
Chairman Niederpruem noted the berm along the rear of the property and questioned if they could gravity through it. Ms. Cierniak responded that there is a 36-inch trunk sewer that runs north/south through the back of the property and they will go under that.
Mr. Sherman questioned where the car carriers will turn around after dropping off the vehicles and Mr. Wincott stated that they will turn around in the parking area. There will be 292 parking spaces and there will never be that many cars in the area.
Planning Consultant Andrew Reilly stated that this was a very important issue and if the special permit is approved they will have to return for site plan approval. He suggested that an area be cleared for a turn around rather than showing parking spaces. They will also be looking at the lighting standards and for buffering.
Mr. Rathmann thought the 15’ turning radius on Orchard Park Road was a little under the amount needed for turning a car carrier into the site.
No comments were received from the public.
Motion by Rathmann, seconded by Mendola, to recommend a negative declaration with regard to SEQR for the proposed new vehicle storage facility at 216 Orchard Park Road.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Sherman, to recommend approval of the request for a special permit for property located at 216 Orchard Park Road, being part of Lot No. 282, changing its classification from C-2 to C-2(S), for a new vehicle storage facility, conditioned upon the following: 1) control lighting; 2) buffering be provided for the adjoining properties.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-09
A request from 1000 Queens Grant LLC for a rezoning for vacant land on North Drive, South Drive, and Grant Blvd., being part of Lot Nos. 426 & 427, changing its classification from R-75 to R-65, for construction of an 83-lot single family home subdivision.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that along with the application the Planning Board had received a legal description, a full environmental assessment form, a project plan, and a survey.
Robert Pidanick of Nussbaumer & Clarke Inc. represented 1000 Queen Grant LLC and stated their request for a rezoning of 34 acres from R-75 to R-65 for an 83-lot single family subdivision. The homes will be comparable in size to those in the surrounding neighborhoods and will offer affordable housing to more residents. Access into the development will be from South Drive and Grant Blvd., two existing streets located in the City of Lackawanna. The sublots on South Drive have a lot width requirement of 45’ and on Grant Blvd. it is 65’, which is consistent with the R-65 zoning they were requesting for this parcel. Mr. Pidanick stated that a 75 lot subdivision was previously fully approved for this parcel; however, the developer was not financially able to move forward with the project. A federal wetlands is indicated on the property that was previously delineated by Wilson Environmental Technologies. Mr. Pidanick understood that the wetlands delineation was accepted by the Army Corps of Engineers and he will provide future documentation on that. The redesign from the previous plan has 50 percent less road and about 6.5 acres of green space. The only access to the subdivision will be from Lackawanna via South Drive and Grant Blvd. Mr. Pidanick noted that the trend in Erie County is toward smaller lots and these will be affordable homes consistent with the size of homes in the area, under 2000 sf, and a price of $180,000 to $200,000. All future improvements will be done with town requirements and DEC requirements. Mr. Pidanick stated that the zoning change was consistent with the character of the area and there is less infrastructure per lot, which is a benefit to the developer and a benefit for future maintenance to the Town of West Seneca.
Chairman Niederpruem noted that the environmental assessment form states, “approximately 73 single family homes or 120 townhouse units.”
Mr. Pidanick stated that was a mistake and the proposal was for 83 single family detached homes.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the Planning Board worked for many months on the previous plan in the R-75 zoning and he questioned if it was just because of economics that it never was built.
Mr. Pidanick stated that the previous plan had 50 percent more road than the current plan and 75’ lots instead of 65’. The previous plan was much more costly and he thought the current plan was a much more desirable plan. Federal wetlands were identified on the property and they have kept away from them. There is a stream corridor that will ultimately be the discharge point for the development and there is a sanitary sewer trunk that runs through the project that will be discharging to the trunk. DEC approval will be required for that proposal.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the surrounding neighborhoods were mostly R-75 zoning and they would have to coordinate with the City of Lackawanna. The lots were bigger coming through the area.
Mr. Pidanick agreed but stated they had no connection to any of the R-75 zoning in the area. They only accessed the development from the City of Lackawanna and the proposal was consistent with what was in that area.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the Comprehensive Plan made clear that R-75 was the desired zoning for that area, so this was an issue.
Mr. Pidanick stated that they understood this, but they were asking the Planning Board to consider reducing the size of the sublots by 10’ to allow the project to proceed. He thought it would be a considerable cost savings for everyone involved and noted that Forbes Capretto builds a very high quality home.
Mr. Mendola stated that a big portion of the parcel was wetlands and he questioned who will maintain that property.
Mr. Pidanick stated that no details had been finalized, but they were looking at setting up a homeowner’s association to own and maintain the green space.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati stated that she had talked to Town Engineer George Montz this date and he indicated that the former Queens Grant Subdivision approved for this parcel was one of three projects that had been allotted sewer taps as part of a sewer system mitigation project the town undertook a number of years ago. The project was allotted a maximum of 75 taps so they will have to discuss this with Mr. Montz.
Mr. Pidanick stated that the homes in Lackawanna along the access to this proposed development were very attractive single family homes. All the traffic will go through that development and there will be about 40 additional cars down each of the streets, but the capacity is there on Abbott Road and on the subdivision streets.
Mrs. Salvati noted that the City of Lackawanna had not yet submitted any comments to the town concerning this project.
Mr. Sherman questioned if there will be three access points into the development from North, South and Grant.
Mr. Pidanick stated that the only access in will be from South Drive and Grant Blvd.
Mr. Mendola did not believe the Planning Board could act on this without hearing comments from the City of Lackawanna.
Mr. Pidanick agreed that they needed Lackawanna’s input, but the recommendation on zoning for the property was up to the Town of West Seneca.
Mr. Sherman questioned if the reason for the reduction in the lot size was to add more lots.
Mr. Pidanick stated that there will be less infrastructure. There were lots lost because of the federal wetlands delineation being done. As the property laid out, they were able to get 83 lots with the R-65 zoning.
Planning Consultant Andrew Reilly asked if Mr. Pidanick had laid out the lots with R-75 zoning. Mr. Pidanick stated that he had not and Mrs. Salvati suggested that a yield plan be done for R-75 lots, noting that the town strives to follow the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Sherman questioned if change in ownership of the property would affect the sewer tap allocation and Mrs. Salvati stated they would have to ask Mr. Montz.
Mike Kloc stated that some neighbors might like to see the project built because it might increase the value of their homes, but some residents have small children and are concerned with added traffic. Mr. Kloc also questioned if the sewers will tap into West Seneca or Lackawanna, noting that they are different sewer districts.
Chairman Niederpruem thought they were tributary to the sewer that went to West Seneca.
Mr. Kloc stated that there were no wetlands on the property many years ago and they only occurred after Route 219 was constructed. He commented on the standing water and stated that drainage will be a big issue with the development.
Steve Krywyj, 95 Grant Blvd., stated that his house is adjacent to the proposed development and his lot is 75’ wide, so he preferred that the development be consistent with that. Mr. Krywyj also commented on the serious drainage issue in the area.
Lana Hames, 260 North Drive, commented on the water that runs down North Drive to Abbott Road. She questioned if the developer will be held to a promise that North Drive will not be invaded and the wetlands will not be invaded.
Mr. Mendola stated that if a plan is approved by the town the developer is held to that plan.
Mr. Kloc questioned where the storm sewers will be.
Mr. Pidanick stated that there is currently no storm water management plan for the site, but they will have to develop that to deal with the water. They are bound by NYS requirements and the Town of West Seneca to deal with water quality and water quantity.
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Rathmann, to recommend denial of the request for a rezoning for vacant land on North Drive, South Drive, and Grant Blvd., being part of Lot Nos. 426 & 427, changing its classification from R-75 to R-65, for construction of an 83-lot single family home subdivision, based on the project not conforming with the Comprehensive Plan for R-75 zoning.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-10
A request from St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church for a special permit for property located at 86 Seneca Creek Road, being part of Lot No. 105, changing its classification from R-50 to R-50(S), for converting vacant land to cemetery use.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that along with the application the Planning Board received a short environmental assessment form, a deed description, and a survey indicating the parcel is 113’ x 140’.
Town Attorney Shawn Martin stated there are two paragraphs describing the property in the February 7, 1986 deed and it appeared the special permit request was only for the second paragraph, which is the vacant land at the back of the property and not the area where the house is located. This will have to be delineated.
Mr. Sherman questioned if St. John’s Church was just buying that parcel and where people visiting the cemetery will park.
Charles Arnold represented St. John’s Church and stated that the church was only buying the rear parcel from the property owner who lived at the corner of Henrietta Avenue and Seneca Creek Road. There is a road within the cemetery that is a short walk from this parcel.
Chairman Niederpruem questioned if there were any plans for a buffer along Henrietta Avenue.
Mr. Arnold responded that there were no plans for a buffer and the town had not required that in the past. They do not put graves close to the right-of-way and along Henrietta Avenue there will be cremation graves rather than vault graves. There is another piece of vacant land they own on Henrietta Avenue at Race Street that will be opened up in the next couple years, and this parcel will remain vacant until needed.
Motion by Niederpruem, seconded by Ciancio, to recommend a negative declaration with regard to SEQR for the property at 86 Seneca Creek Road for cemetery use.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Rathmann, to recommend approval of the request for a special permit for property located at 86 Seneca Creek Road, being part of Lot No. 105, changing its classification from R-50 to R-50(S), for converting vacant land to cemetery use.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Ciancio, seconded by Sherman, to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 P.M.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
PATRICIA C. DEPASQUALE, RMC/CMC
SECRETARY