West Seneca Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10/18/2006
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.
Edwin P. Hunter
Paul Notaro, Deputy Town Attorney
William P. Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer
Absent - None
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 Nigro, seconded by Niederpruem, to approve Minutes #2006-08 of September 20, 2006.
NEW BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Nigro, to open the public hearing.
Attorney Ralph Lorigo, 101 Slade Avenue, represented the petitioner and stated that there was a lease between Look Outdoor Advertising and Joseph Sorrentino of Tony Rome’s to locate a billboard in the parking area north of the restaurant. The billboard will be 14’ x 48’, two-sided, v-shaped, 35 feet high, will face Union Road, and will not be located within 1250 feet of any other billboard. Mr. Lorigo noted that the town had placed various moratoriums on billboards, but the Town Code allowed billboards in a C-2 zoning district and this had not been modified. A billboard ordinance had been drafted several years ago but was never approved by the town. The proposed billboard will meet all the criteria in that ordinance. Mr. Lorigo stated that the petitioner would agree to restrict the type of advertising and limit the hours of illumination.
Mr. Greenan questioned if Mr. Lorigo had recalculated the parking area for the restaurant and the density requirement of the ordinance.
Mr. Lorigo responded that he had not recalculated the restaurant parking. The size of the parcel was only 10’ x 30’ and he did not believe that would affect the parking or density for the restaurant.
Mr. Greenan referred to the rezoning of property along Route 400 for billboards and a statement made at that time that they would not even consider placing a large billboard along Union Road. He questioned if Look Outdoor Advertising was a subsidiary of Lamar Advertising or Nichols & Vann Advertising.
Mr. Lorigo responded that Look Outdoor Advertising was an independent and was not at all related to Lamar Advertising or Nichols & Vann Advertising. The Town Board had denied the billboards along Route 400 and litigation followed with a settlement. Mr. Lorigo had the settlement agreement and noted that 1250 feet between billboards was agreed on, but nothing was mentioned about Union Road. He did not know how far those billboards were from Union Road.
Chairman Ciancio stated that the town was currently working on the Master Plan and billboard issues had been brought up during discussions. He thought that a billboard along Union Road would not be very appealing to the eye.
Brian Procyshyn, 252 Fremont Avenue, questioned the exact location of the proposed billboard.
Mr. Procyshyn questioned if the Town Code specified that a billboard should be a certain distance from a residential area and if there were any other billboards in town in a similar situation.
Chairman Ciancio advised that the Town Code did not specify any distance for a billboard to be located from a residential area.
Mr. Greenan stated that there was a similar situation on Orchard Park Road next to the bridge.
Sam Schifano, 253 Fremont Avenue, commented on the large size of the billboard and the 35 foot height and did not believe that Union Road was an appropriate location for it.
Mr. Hunter noted that Section 120-40.1 of the Town Code defined a billboard as “a free standing, single faced sign advertising off-premises commercial enterprises.”
Mr. Greenan questioned if there was a different definition in the “Definitions” section of the Town Code.
Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski referred to the “Definitions” section of the Town Code and stated that “Sign, Advertising or Billboard” was defined as “A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold or offered elsewhere than upon the same zoning lot.”
A resident questioned if any section of the ordinance stated that there was nothing permitted that would lower property values.
Chairman Ciancio responded that there was nothing within the ordinance that covered lowering of property values.
A resident at 254 Fremont Avenue stated that her house is located 100 feet from the proposed billboard and questioned what type of lighting was proposed.
Mr. Lorigo responded that if approval was recommended he was willing to agree to stipulations on the lighting, hours of illumination, and content of the billboard. The billboard would be uplighted and the hours of illumination would be dusk until 1 A.M.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Hunter, to recommend denial of the request for a special permit for property located at 1537 Union Road, being part of Lot Nos. 190 & 191, changing its classification from C-2(S) to C-2(S), for a billboard based on the following: 1) the proposal violates Section 120-23 of the Town Code in that it is not in harmony with the development of the district in which it is situated; 2) approval would cause Tony Rome’s Restaurant to be in violation of the present zoning; 3) the square footage for delineating the parking and maneuvering on the same parcel has not been presented to the Planning Board for revision; 4) the proposal violates Section 120-40.1 of the Town Code which does not permit a two-faced billboard; 5) the proposed billboard is not in harmony with the surrounding area and conflicts with the present movement within the town to promote a village atmosphere beginning somewhat north of this area and extending south to the end of Southgate Plaza.
On the question, Mr. Hunter commented on the town’s plan to redo the sidewalks, install decorative streetlamps, and add gardens, benches, bushes and decorative trees to this area of Union Road. The proposed billboard would be totally out of context with the town’s future plan.
Chairman Ciancio referred to the site plan submitted and questioned the 50-foot lots indicated on the plan.
Attorney Ralph Lorigo, 101 Slade Avenue, represented the petitioner and stated that the proposed subdivision was for patio homes, and although the ordinance did not cover patio homes, a precedent had been set with the Marrano development.
Deputy Town Attorney Paul Notaro noted that the patio homes in the Marrano subdivision created other conflicts with the Town Code with regard to setbacks for decks and other amenities, and they have had to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. He suggested that the Planning Board review this proposal carefully.
Mr. Lorigo commented that patio homes have been around for years and other towns had codes that addressed them. He thought the Town of West Seneca needed to modernize its codes.
Chairman Ciancio felt that the density was too great on the proposed development. He further noted that patio homes were usually a private development where the town did not have to maintain the streets. This proposal was for a public right-of-way.
Mr. Niederpruem thought that the single access was a real problem and there would be too much traffic for the road leading to Angle Road.
Mr. Lorigo responded that traffic studies indicated that patio homes tended to be occupied by older individuals and empty nesters with one vehicle and they didn’t travel the roads during rush hours.
Mr. Notaro stated that the Marrano patio home development proved that the traffic studies were not exactly accurate. There were many homes in that development with two vehicles.
Mr. Lorigo commented that although they had two vehicles they were not on the road during heavy traffic hours.
Mr. Nigro questioned the size of the units.
Mr. Lorigo responded that Mr. Piotrowski was not sure what size they would be, but they would probably be comparable to the Marrano development. The Marrano units were not inexpensive, but they were less maintenance.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Rathmann, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
PATRICIA C. DEPASQUALE,