West Seneca Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/20/2005
Chairman Joseph Ciancio called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. followed by the Pledge to the Flag.
ROLL CALL: Present -
Robert Niederpruem Jr.
William P. Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer
William H. Bond, Deputy Town Attorney
Chairman Ciancio 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 Rathmann, seconded by Nigro, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Niederpruem, seconded by Rathmann, to approve Minutes #2005-03 of March 16, 2005.
NEW BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
A request from David Lutz for a special permit for property located at 1055 Union Road, being part of Lot No. 119 & 120, changing its classification from C-2(S) to C-2(S), for a car wash.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to open the public hearing.
Chairman Ciancio stated that along with the application the Planning Board had received a short environmental assessment form, a deed description, a survey, and a site plan.
James Lutz, 3459 Lakeview Road, Hamburg, stated that he and his brother, David Lutz, were partners in this business venture. He submitted a letter outlining various aspects of the proposed car wash and noted that they were willing to work with the town. Mr. Lutz stated that the gas tanks were removed from the property, but there was a ground water situation that Sunoco would be taking care of. The time frame to resolve the situation was six months to three years.
Mr. Greenan commented that the new Master Plan for the town called for a green area along Union Road in the form of lower plantings with limited automobile access. Most of the traffic should be internal to the site, but the car wash plan was inconsistent with five bays discharging vehicles immediately onto Union Road. The Master Plan also called for a zero lot line or a five-foot side yard, but the proposed plan indicated a 3’4” side yard. This problem could be eliminated if the car wash were moved to the south, but the ordinance called for stacking five cars for each bay. With five bays, stacking for 25 cars would be required on the property.
Mr. Lutz stated that the plan submitted had stacking room for 18 to 20 cars. He was unaware of the stacking requirement for 25 cars.
Mr. Greenan questioned the square footage requirement for parked cars.
Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski advised that 350 square foot was required per parked car.
Mr. Rathmann stated that the rear yard abutted residential property, and therefore, was required to have 20 feet of green space. The plan submitted only indicated 10 feet. Also, no structures could be located within the 20 feet, so the dumpster would have to be relocated. This would have a negative effect on the circulation of cars and stacking.
Mr. Niederpruem questioned where the wash water from the bays went.
Mr. Lutz responded that the water would go into the oil separator and then the sewer.
Mr. Niederpruem noted that the plan submitted looked like the water would be discharged into the storm sewer.
Mr. Czuprynski advised that water from the car wash was contaminated and would have to discharge into the sanitary sewer. He further referred to Delta Sonic Car Wash and stated that the amount of water they used per car wash was only one or two gallons because they recirculated the water.
Mr. Nigro stated that if the plan were amended to include 20 feet of green space in the rear, stacking for four cars would be lost.
Mr. Lutz stated that he would have to eliminate a bay.
Mr. Niederpruem referred to the ordinance and stated that for a coin operated car wash five spaces for stacking per bay was required. For a rapid car wash, 30 stacking spaces were required for one bay, plus 15 spaces for each additional bay. Mr. Lutz’s plan called for two to three touch-free automatic washes and two to three self-serve bays.
Mr. Lutz did not consider the touch-free automatic to be a rapid car wash. With a touch-free automatic, the vehicle is pulled inside the bay, the machine goes around the vehicle, and the vehicle is then pulled out.
Eugene Owczarczak stated that he owned the building to the south of this property and was concerned about overflow vehicles standing on Union Road causing traffic problems.
Richard Schadel, 80 Southwood Drive, stated that he lived directly behind the proposed car wash and was concerned with noise from the 24-hour operation and the vacuums operating until 11:00 P.M. He was also concerned about upkeep and noted that the previous tenant did not do a very good job maintaining the property.
Greg Drabik, 74 Southwood Drive, stated that he lived behind the proposed car wash and had numerous problems with the previous tenants. He had made several phone calls to Sunoco regarding property maintenance (i.e. fence, rodents, garbage). Mr. Drabik was also concerned about noise, the headlights shining in his home, and the car wash becoming a hangout for kids.
Rita Seibert, 68 Southwood Drive, stated that the green space at the rear of the property had not been maintained for the last 20 years, and this was of great concern to the neighbors. She was also concerned about the environmental factors with gasoline emissions from vehicles standing in line at the car wash. Mrs. Seibert was opposed to the 24-hour operation and stated that a more permanent retainer wall was necessary to reduce the noise and debris.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Nigro, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Nigro, to recommend denial of the request for a special permit for property located at 1055 Union Road, being part of Lot No. 119 & 120, changing its classification from C-2(S) to C-2(S), for a car wash, based on the following: 1) the plan does not comply with the proposed Master Plan; 2) the style of building does not conform to the town center concept; 3) the parking and stacking area is not sufficient to support five bays; 4) the north side yard violates the ordinance; 5) the rear yard abutting residential zoning did not conform with the requirement for a 20-foot buffer zone; 6) the dumpster location violates both the side yard and the rear buffer zone and moving the dumpster to the north and west would impede one of the proposed bays and further cut down on the parking and stacking.
A request from Patrick B. Shanahan & Stacy Bechakas for a special permit for property located at 555 Orchard Park Road, being part of Lot No. 296, changing its classification from M-1 to M-1(S), for a billboard.
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Niederpruem, to open the public hearing.
Chairman Ciancio stated that along with the application the Planning Board had received a deed description, a survey, a site plan, and a short environmental assessment form.
Stacy Bechakas, 38 Creekwood Drive, Lancaster, stated their request for a special permit to erect a billboard structure on the property located at 555 Orchard Park Road.
Patrick Shanahan, 86 HiView Terrace, West Seneca, noted that the special permit would only apply to a portion of the property as indicated on the survey.
Deputy Town Attorney William Bond stated that the legal description was for the entire parcel. He questioned if one-third of the property would be sufficient.
Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski stated that the total height of the sign was 42 feet, so he thought that one-third of the property was sufficient for the special permit.
Mr. Shanahan stated that the billboard itself was 14’ x 48’ with advertising on both sides. It would be illuminated, but would be shut off between 11:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M. They were also willing to work with the town with regard to wattage.
Mr. Niederpruem questioned the proximity of the billboard to the power lines and whether the petitioners had contacted NYSEG.
Mr. Bechakas responded that the billboard would be located close to 50 feet from the right-of-way. They did not contact NYSEG, but did not see this being a problem considering that Lamar Advertising had a structure immediately adjacent to the power lines on Ridge Road. Although the railroad was located in between, that billboard was in closer proximity to the power lines than the proposed billboard would be.
Mr. Greenan questioned why the petitioners were requesting 268 feet from Orchard Park Road for the special permit.
Mr. Shanahan stated that they would only need 65 feet plus whatever was necessary to comply with any setback requirements from Orchard Park Road.
Mr. Czuprynski stated that if the Planning Board considered the billboard a structure, the front setback would have to be 25 feet from the right-of-way. The side yard requirement would be 10 feet.
Mr. Greenan commented on the location of the proposed billboard and did not believe it would be easy to read it from Orchard Park Road.
Mr. Shanahan requested that the Planning Board table their request until the next meeting to allow them to review the location of the billboard.
Motion by Greenan to table this item until the next Planning Board meeting.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Mr. Mendola questioned the distance from the top of the ground to the top of the sign.
Mr. Bechakas advised that the distance was 42 feet. The face of the sign started at 25 feet off the ground and went up 17 feet.
Mr. Mendola did not believe the drawings submitted were clear enough for the Planning Board to review.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Niederpruem, seconded by Mendola, to recommend denial of the request for a special permit for property located at 555 Orchard Park Road, being part of Lot No. 296, changing its classification from M-1 to M-1(S), for a billboard, based on the following: 1) the request does not meet the proposed Master Plan; 2) too many billboards in the area.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Rathmann, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
PATRICIA C. WISNIEWSKI, RMC/CMC