West Seneca Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09/21/2005
Chairman Joseph Ciancio called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. followed by the Pledge to the Flag.
ROLL CALL: Present -
William P. Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer
Paul Notaro, Deputy Town Attorney
Absent - Robert Niederpruem Jr.
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 Mendola, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Rathmann, seconded by Mendola, to approve Minutes #2005-07 of August 17, 2005.
OLD BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
A request from Clover Construction Management, Inc. 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.
Michael Jordan of Clover Construction Management stated that they would access public water through an easement at the southeast corner of the property out to Greenfield Avenue. A letter had been submitted from the Erie County Water Authority stating that there was service available, but the plans would have to be approved by them. Mr. Jordan further stated that there was a county sewer just west of the southwest corner of the site and a letter from Erie County was submitted concerning the capacity. This had to be finalized in the approval process,
but the purchase contract provided for an easement to be granted to access the sewer. Mr. Jordan indicated on the site plan an existing Erie County Sewer right-of-way that ran from Union Road behind the plaza and ended just west of the property line and noted that the survey submitted showed the sewer easement.
Bob Sawmiller of C & S Engineers, 90 Broadway, Buffalo, commented on the preliminary storm drainage system and indicated on the plans the proposed storm water detention pond. The Town of West Seneca, NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) required that water quality and water quantity controls be provided for this site. Mr. Sawmiller indicated the catch basins on the utility plans and an outlet pipe that would divert water from the pond into a new ditch or swale that connected the 12-inch pipe around the side of the building and tied into the existing 18-inch pipe.
Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski advised that no building permit could be issued until the plans were approved by the Engineering Department.
Mr. Rathmann questioned the size of the detention basin.
Mr. Sawmiller responded that they had not done the final grading, but he estimated it to be about five to six feet deep. The basin would retain water as required.
Mr. Rathmann questioned the slope of the drainage swale coming from the patio homes. He noted that there was a very invasive plant growing in the drainage swale and questioned if they would be promoting more of that type growth if the swale was shallow with water sitting in it.
Mr. Sawmiller thought that the slope was about one percent, but they would try to slope it as much as possible.
Mr. Nigro questioned if the deep drainage ditch located behind the houses on Greenfield Avenue would be filled in.
Mr. Sawmiller responded that the existing ditch would be filled in and it would be relocated.
Mr. Rathmann questioned if the detention area for the patio homes had water quality in it. He thought it had been developed prior to the NYSDEC regulations.
Mr. Sawmiller stated that the detention area for the patio homes was grandfathered prior to the regulation. The proposed swale would provide pre-treatment. It did not provide 100 percent treatment, but it was considered acceptable by the NYSDEC. The swale would be increased, which would increase the water quality slightly.
Mr. Nigro questioned if the residents of Greenfield Avenue would still be able to use the green area behind their homes.
Mr. Jordan responded that the neighbors would no longer be able to use the green space located behind their homes.
Mr. Rathmann questioned Mr. Sawmiller’s experience with having to provide larvacide for mosquitoes breeding in the wet areas.
Mr. Sawmiller stated that he had spoken to the NYSDEC regarding this and normally mosquitoes grow in very shallow standing water. The detention pond would probably have two to three feet of water in it at all times.
Paul Burakowski, P.E., of FRA Engineering referred to the traffic analysis that was done to determine how much traffic the project would generate and how it would impact the traffic on Union Road. The existing access drive to the Village Flea Outlet would be improved and would be used for ingress and egress to the proposed facility. The available sight distances along Union Road were at least 1000 feet in both directions from the driveway and this exceeded the minimum sight distance criteria specified by the NYSDOT. A manual traffic count was conducted of the intersection of the driveway and Union Road during the morning (7 AM to 9 AM) and afternoon (3 PM to 6 PM) peak traffic periods. Very low traffic volumes were recorded during these peak hours and only 11 inbound and 16 outbound vehicles were recorded during 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM. Trip generation data was obtained by conducting a traffic count at Seneca Pointe on Orchard Park Road, a facility of similar size and demographics as the proposed facility. Traffic volumes were very low at Seneca Pointe; and therefore, should be slightly lower at the proposed project since it would contain less living units. The traffic analysis indicated that the proposed project was not expected to have a significant impact on existing traffic conditions.
Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski questioned if the traffic counts were only done on one day and if they were taken when the Village Flea Market was open.
Mr. Burakowski responded that the traffic counts were only taken on one day and the Village Flea Market was not open at the time.
Mr. Czuprynski questioned if Mr. Burakowski had taken into consideration the other plaza and other senior citizens home going in.
Mr. Burakowski stated that People Inc. was contacted regarding the senior citizens home on the other side of Union Road and that facility would be for low income, assisted living seniors. They had an extremely low number of residents with vehicles.
Mr. Czuprynski further questioned if Mr. Burakowski had considered the age of the residents who would be attempting to pull out onto Union Road.
Mr. Burakowski responded that they found that elderly people will often avoid an intersection if they feel it is too difficult to maneuver.
Chairman Ciancio noted that this was commercial property and if a commercial development were to locate there the traffic would be much worse and remedial procedures would be required.
Mr. Jordan commented on the density for the project and stated that they had reduced the number of units from 115 to 107. The width of the building would be reduced, so there would be more green space on the east and west. There would also be more room on the south side of the building for access for emergency equipment around the back corners of the building.
Mr. Mendola referred to the location of the fire hydrants and thought that there should be a hydrant at the beginning of the driveway.
Mr. Jordan responded that he had discussed the plan with the Chief of Union Fire Company and he had no problem with it. The driveways were all 30 feet wide so an emergency vehicle could turn around without a problem, but he was willing to add another hydrant if the Planning Board thought it was necessary.
Don Littler, Chief of Union Fire Company, 2055 Union Road, stated that when he initially met with representatives from Clover Construction Management they discussed the hydrant layout, but did not designate a specific location. He would prefer that the hydrant be located as Mr. Mendola suggested.
Mr. Mendola suggested that the Chief’s approval of the hydrant locations be a condition if the project were to be approved.
Chief Littler further requested that the fire company have access to the full rear of the structure due to the H-shape of the building.
Mr. Mendola referred to the paver drive and questioned if emergency vehicles would be able to drive on it.
Mr. Jordan stated that the pavers were brick with a stone base under them. There were holes in the pavers so grass could grow through them and from a distance it looked like grass growing. They could be mowed with a lawn mower and snow could be plowed off them. Mr. Jordan commented that the pavers provided a suitable service to drive emergency equipment on, but also provided a visual break from blacktop.
Chairman Ciancio questioned if the proposed 14 feet width of the paver drive was wide enough to handle an emergency vehicle.
Chief Littler responded that 14 feet was not sufficient width for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Rathmann advised that NYS Building Code called for a 20-foot clear space and it had to be able to handle the outriggers for the largest vehicles using it.
Chief Littler was totally opposed to the proposed driveway and stated that he would prefer to see asphalt or concrete used all around the back of the building rather than pavers. He was not only concerned about the pavers not supporting the apparatus, but he also had seen too many commercial complexes with pavers that were not plowed in the winter. The driveway would have to be maintained.
Brian Doster, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners of West Seneca Fire District #2, thought the driveway should be continued around the rear of the building. He stated that Union Fire Company buried their fire apparatus at Clinton Street School when they drove behind the building in response to a fire call. He calculated about 160 feet of wing on the back of the proposed building to the middle of the “H”. This was a large distance to carry equipment, ladders, etc. and they would not be able to perform a rescue on the back of the building from the paver drive area. Mr. Doster questioned if the outlets and inlets for the retention pond would be caged and expressed concern for the safety of children in the area.
Mr. Jordan responded that the pipe for the retention pond would only be 6-inches, so this would prevent anyone from getting caught in it.
Mr. Mendola questioned the width of the fire truck with the outriggers.
Mr. Doster responded that their fire truck was about 18 feet wide with the outriggers, but they were planning to build a new fire hall to get a bigger piece of equipment. The newer trucks were wider at 102 inches, which would add six inches on to the reach of the outriggers. He thought that 20 feet would be adequate for the width of a driveway.
Mr. Jordan thought that it would be possible to put a 20-foot driveway straight across the back of the project, but they wanted to create a backyard environment and did not want to see the driveway disrupt the detention pond, which was an aesthetically pleasing area.
Donald Wilson of Wilson Environmental Technologies, 2805 Wehrle Drive, Williamsville, stated that a wetlands determination was conducted on the property on August 5, 2005 and prior to that in 1996 they had conducted a wetlands delineation on the Marrano property to the east of the proposed site. Mr. Wilson stated that the parcel was highly disturbed. Old fill material was incorporated into the parcel over the years and the area Mr. Rathmann had referred to earlier accepted overflow from the adjacent parcel. At times in the spring there was standing water, and the growth of phragmites was highly invasive within the area. Mr. Wilson stated that the site did not qualify for any federally regulated wetlands because it failed to meet the three federal criteria of hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. Mr. Wilson further noted that there were no federally regulated wetlands listed on the National Wetlands Inventory Map for this site and no state wetlands on the NYS Freshwater Wetlands Map. Clover Construction Management would not have to pursue any further federal or state action.
Mr. Jordan stated that they had obtained a cross-easement with Garden Village Plaza. A purchase contract was submitted indicating that they had obtained an agreement to use the driveway for ingress and egress to the site and easements for the utility connection.
Mr. Mendola questioned who would be maintaining the driveway.
Mr. Jordan responded that Clover Construction Management would maintain the driveway to Union Road. He further noted that a long form environmental study had been completed and submitted. Mr. Jordan met with the neighbors yesterday and stated that there was a question as to the location of the fence. He indicated the proposed fence on the site plan and stated that it would be along the property line, one or two feet from the line. The high area would be cut down so the bank would be closer to the property line. This would not affect the properties on Greenfield Avenue because all of them were at the high end of the bank and any water running off the back of those properties would come down into the proposed facility. Mr. Jordan stated that the plan required four variances. The Town Board could approve a variance for street frontage for the project not being on a public dedicated street. They would be asking the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance for the density and for a six-foot high fence in the front yard to separate the project from the commercial zoning. A variance would also be required for parking. The plan showed 128 parking spaces and 27 garages, and they felt that one parking space per unit was more than adequate for this type of facility.
Mr. Rathmann questioned the type of fence to be constructed.
Mr. Jordan responded that the fence would be a straight wooden board.
Mr. Rathmann thought that a board-on-board fence would be better because of exposure of the straight board fence to the wind force from west to east along the west property line.
Mr. Jordan stated that they would probably use a steel post for the board fence.
Mr. Czuprynski noted that a fence would be required along the east property line along the patio home development.
Chairman Ciancio was not in favor of a fence along the east side because it would give fire personnel greater access and be more aesthetically pleasing. However, a variance would be required to eliminate the fence.
Mr. Rathmann referred to the curbed islands on the plans and questioned if the sidewalks around the building would be curbed.
Mr. Jordan responded that where there was a sidewalk against pavement on the perimeter it would be an integral curbed sidewalk and the islands would be curbed. The interior parking lot islands would not be curbed.
Mr. Rathmann recommended that the islands in the parking lot be curbed. He further commented on the five foot turning radius on the first turn of the driveway and stated that a fire truck needed a 30 to 35 foot inside turning radius. Mr. Rathmann stated that there were no sidewalks from the facility out to Union Road. He suggested that a sidewalk be provided since this was to be a walkable community. Mr. Rathmann referred to the garages and questioned why the center garage was pulled in from the property line. He preferred to see the garages lined up. There was also one parking structure in the middle of the parking lot that he thought might be an eyesore. Mr. Rathmann questioned what the parking garages would look like.
Mr. Jordan stated that the parking garages were typical garage buildings, 12’ x 20’, attached in a chain with individual garage doors. The structure in the middle of the parking lot was placed there to break up the size of the pavement and rows of parking. They thought it would be more aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Rathmann thought the parking spaces on the back side of the parking structure were rather dangerous because they were hidden from view. He further noted a single dumpster for the entire project and questioned if that would be sufficient.
Mr. Jordan responded that one dumpster should be sufficient, but they could adjust the pick up schedule to accommodate usage. There were trash rooms within the building for the residents to put their garbage. A maintenance person would then empty the garbage from the trash room and place it in the dumpster.
Mr. Rathmann noted that there was nothing on any of the plans that talked about site lighting.
Mr. Jordan responded that because this was a zoning issue, they had not gone to full and final engineering. They would light the parking areas and it would be done in accordance with the codes and generally accepted standards.
Mr. Rathmann referred to the parking and questioned if it was adequate for the size of the structure. He wanted to ensure that there was adequate parking in case the plaza became fully rented at some point.
Mr. Jordan stated that the parking that remained in the facility was adequate for the square footage size of the structure. He had calculations available to verify this.
Mr. Rathmann was not satisfied with the plantings that were proposed. The Sunburst Honey Locust was a terrible tree and putting Blue Spruce at the entrance islands would create visibility problems and the snowplows would destroy them. He suggested shade trees in that area, 2½-inch caliper. He also would not go to the extent of planting excessive Blue Spruce and would stagger them rather than planting long, straight rows, and mix them with other types of evergreens. Mr. Rathmann stated that he still had a problem with the entrance road and commented that there were too many directions you could go and this created a safety problem.
Mr. Jordan responded that a resident who lives at the facility would quickly learn how to get in and out, so he did not see this as an issue. The purpose of landscaping the median was to identify what it was and where it was heading.
Mr. Rathmann thought that the driveways needed further study.
Brian Doster, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners for West Seneca Fire District No. 2, stated that he was very concerned about the influx of senior homes in the fire district. They were very taxing on the volunteers because they required a lot of emergency medical services. There were no tax benefits to the community and senior citizens typically did not join the volunteer fire department to help the community. Mr. Doster noted that there were five senior facilities currently within West Seneca Fire District No. 2 and they had increased the fire company’s workload tremendously.
Ross Arundell, 30 Hybank Drive, a manager with Clover Companies, thought that Mr. Doster’s comments were discriminatory and stated that he paid taxes on his property for 18 years but never had to call the fire department or first-aid. Someday he planned to move into a senior citizens facility and then would be paying school taxes through his rent. There were 528 apartments in Williamstown along with Seneca Pointe and Orchard Place. Mr. Arundell noted that of all the people that lived in these places, they never had an inordinate number of EMS calls.
Cheryl Ratigan, 50 Greenfield Avenue, was opposed to the loss of green space in the neighborhood and the proposed fence. She further commented on the traffic on Union Road and thought that the traffic study should have been done at different times of the month and not just on one day.
Dan Chavanne, 86 Greenfield Avenue, stated that he lived at this address since 1961 and was a lifelong resident of Gardenville. He referred to a Buffalo News article dated July 19, 2005 stating that the Town of Cheektowaga designated Garden Village Plaza as a neighborhood redevelopment area eligible for tax incentives. Mr. Chavanne stated that in 1972 Bella Vista rezoned the property to accommodate the development of Garden Village Plaza. Part of the condition of the rezoning was that a 50-foot buffer zone would be left between the plaza and the residential homes on Greenfield Avenue and the residents had been maintaining that property since that time. Mr. Chavanne thought that if Clover Construction Management was civic-minded they would also leave the 50-foot buffer. There was no park or recreational area in the neighborhood for the children and they used this 50-foot strip of land for that purpose. Mr. Chavanne commented on the heavy traffic on Union Road and stated that the addition of more traffic from this project would add further problems along with the additional traffic from the senior development on the other side of Union Road. He requested that the Town of West Seneca meet with the Town of Cheektowaga and the NYSDOT to try to resolve the traffic situation in this area of Union Road. Mr. Chavanne questioned how the project would add value to the town or the neighbor’s homes and thought that it would detract from their property values.
John Dorociak, 96 Greenfield Avenue, stated that he lived at the end of the street where the land was approximately 10 feet higher than the graded area where the apartments were proposed. He questioned what would be done to keep the bank from washing away after it was cut back.
Mr. Jordan responded that there would be a 2 on 1 slope embankment that would be planted with grass. The embankment would probably start ten feet from the property line and the fence would be one or two feet from the line.
Mr. Dorociak agreed with Mrs. Ratigan’s comment about the fence and stated that he had a six-foot fence behind his home and if a fence were constructed around the project it would create an alleyway. He did not believe this would be a safe situation.
Mr. Jordan stated that they would agree not to construct the fence if the residents did not want it.
Chairman Ciancio suggested planting trees for screening rather than a fence.
Mr. Rathmann commented that a 3 on 1 slope would be necessary in order to maintain the property.
Mike Harmon, Property Manager for the Burchfield Village Patio Homes, questioned the density requirement for the project and the parking requirement.
Chairman Ciancio stated that 50 units were allowed and the proposed project involved 107 units. The Planning Board addressed this at a previous meeting and asked the petitioner to cut back on the density. The project was reduced by eight units to allow access to the rear of the property.
Mr. Rathmann responded that the parking requirement was 180 spaces and the project allowed for 155 spaces. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals was required for the parking.
Mr. Harmon questioned how the outdoor lighting would be addressed, if the dumpster would be enclosed and where the dumpster would be placed.
Chairman Ciancio stated that lighting would have to comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Jordan stated that the dumpster would be enclosed and would be located next to one of the garage structures as indicated on the site plan.
Dick Meyers, 1187 Orchard Park Road, stated that he was a homeowner in West Seneca since 1963 and now lived in Seneca Pointe Apartments. He was in favor of senior apartments and commented that there were a number of people like himself who chose to sell their home and move into a senior apartment. Mr. Meyers was glad that senior apartments were available in West Seneca and hoped that even more would become available.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Greenan, to recommend 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.
On the question, Mr. Rathmann asked that the following stipulations be added to the motion: 1) a sidewalk shall be constructed from the building to Union Road for pedestrian access; 2) tree planting shall be changed to remove the Blue Spruce from the island areas and replace them with a suitable shade tree of 2½ inch caliper the same spacing as the Blue Spruce trees and the Blue Spruce trees shall be supplemented with additional plantings of the same size in different varieties of evergreen; 3) a board-on-board fence rather than a solid board fence shall be used around the property for aesthetics as well as for wind purposes; 4) a confirmation shall be made as to the volume of parking required for the City Mission property; 5) the entrance driveways shall be restudied to allow for better traffic circulation.
Mr. Mendola thought that it would be difficult to install a sidewalk all the way to Union Road because in the rest of the project the sidewalk was protected and/or in combination with raised curbing.
Mr. Rathmann stated that if all the islands along the roadway and the sidewalks adjacent to the building were being curbed, the islands could be ten feet wide with a four-foot sidewalk and six feet of green space for trees.
Mr. Greenan referred to Mr. Rathmann’s suggested amendments and stated that the motion on the floor limited the sidewalks to the area being purchased by the developer. He understood Mr. Rathmann suggested an amendment to the landscaping that included deleting the Blue Spruce and inserting a minimum 2½ inch diameter shade tree with a pertinent mixed vegetation in the median strips. Mr. Greenan also understood that Mr. Rathmann preferred a board-on-board fence as opposed to a simple board fence. He further agreed that any zoning change be conditioned upon the adjacent property continuing to be appropriately zoned and have appropriate parking. This would depend on how many parking spaces were required by City Mission. Mr. Greenan thought that City Mission probably had an easement that went into the Garden Village Plaza and it was not a zoning problem, but he agreed it was a legitimate concern.
Mr. Jordan noted that there was a cross-parking and cross-access agreement with the plaza in which parking and access drives were shared.
NEW BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
A request from James Sorge 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.
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 survey, a deed description, a site plan and a tax map.
James Sorge, 446 North Davis Road, Elma, stated his proposal to construct a six-unit apartment building at 3596 Clinton Street. There was sufficient parking and the setbacks would comply. A fence would be constructed along the parking area and he had received verbal approval on the drainage plan from the Engineering Department. Mr. Sorge also noted that if the neighboring property owner had any input as to the type of fence they would prefer, he would be happy to try to accommodate them.
Chairman Ciancio agreed that there was sufficient parking and stated that the density was adequate for six units.
Mr. Rathmann noted that this was a corner lot and questioned which would be considered the frontage.
Mr. Sorge responded that frontage would be on Clinton Street, but the apartment building would face Weigand Street.
Mr. Rathmann noted that a multi-family dwelling required a 30-foot access drive rather than 25 feet. Mr. Sorge’s plans would have to be amended accordingly.
Mr. Sorge stated that the building could be pushed back to accommodate the increase.
Mr. Rathmann referred to the drainage swale at the rear of the property and thought it might interfere with pushing the building back.
Mr. Sorge had discussed the drainage swale with the Engineering Department and they informed him that as long as he kept the water on his property he could fill some of the area.
Chairman Ciancio questioned if Mr. Sorge would consider a four-unit building instead of six units.
Mr. Sorge did not believe it would be economically feasible to reduce the number of units. He presented an interior layout of the proposed building.
Mr. Greenan commented that the layout of the units was different and he questioned if there was a problem with the central unit only having windows on the north wall.
Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski advised that windows were only required in the living area. Kitchens and bathrooms were not considered living areas.
Mr. Mendola questioned if moving the parking area to the west away from the property line would create any problem.
Mr. Sorge responded that the current placement of the parking was the flattest area of the lot. It would be difficult to move, but he thought it could be moved west, away from the house on Weigand Street without a problem.
Chairman Ciancio noted that a fence along the parking area was not required, but the Planning Board could recommend that a fence or trees be planted to screen the parking lot.
Dominic Russo, 3580 Clinton Street, stated that he also owned the home at 20 Weigand Street, so his property abutted the proposed apartment building on the north and west. He questioned how many bedrooms were in each unit.
Mr. Sorge responded that there were four apartments with two bedrooms each and two apartments with one bedroom each.
Mr. Russo commented that there had been a lot of talk about the proposed Master Plan and maintaining the integrity and historical beauty of the Gardenville area. He thought that the proposed apartment building was uncharacteristic of the neighborhood. Most of the surrounding homes were single-family and owner-occupied. Mr. Russo thought that the value of his homes would be diminished if this proposal were to be approved.
Mike McKay, 95 Orchard Avenue, commented that progress in town was important, but thought that the Master Plan should be considered. He could not see how six apartments would fit on the site and noted that the entire parcel was below grade. This would mean that the property would have to be built up, and Mr. McKay thought that would mean water problems for the neighbors. He was also concerned about noise and lighting for the apartment building intruding on the neighbors.
Chairman Ciancio stated that the size of the lot was just over 37,000 square feet and the Town Code required 35,000 square feet for a six-unit building. The parking requirement was 1.5 spaces for each unit and eleven spaces plus one handicapped space were being provided.
Paul Goldsmith stated that he lives two houses from the site and had a large window overlooking the property. He would not mind a house being built on the lot, but thought that a six-unit apartment building would bring down his property value because it did not fit in with the surrounding homes. Mr. Goldsmith commented on the drainage problem he had and the low grade of the proposed site.
Michael Shimskey, 20 Weigand Street, stated that this was a beautiful area of town and he would prefer to see single-family, owner-occupied homes instead of an apartment building.
Maureen George, 107 Orchard Avenue, stated that this area of town was a wonderful community to raise children and she was concerned about an apartment building in the neighborhood and who would live there. She did not believe that an apartment building would fit well in the neighborhood.
Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski recited a list of other uses that fell under the R-60A zoning and would not have to go through the rezoning process for approval.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Nigro, to recommend approval 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, with the following stipulations: 1) all lighting in the parking area shall be directed away from Weigand Street; 2) a fence shall be constructed along the north line adjacent to any paved parking area (fence to be of a nature that meets Mr. Russo’s approval).
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Rathmann, to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 P.M.
PATRICIA C. DEPASQUALE, RMC/CMC