West Seneca Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09/13/2007

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 Mendola, seconded by Niederpruem, to approve Minutes #2007-07 of August 9, 2007.

OLD BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS

2007-A
A public hearing to consider final approval of the proposed nine-lot Globa Subdivision located on East & West Road and Angle Road.

Motion by Mendola, seconded by Nigro, to open the public hearing.

2007-A    (continued)
Peter Johnston of William Schutt & Associates represented the developer, Jim Globa, and stated his request for a negative declaration for SEQR and final approval of the project.

Chairman Ciancio referred to a communication received from Erie County and questioned if their concerns had been addressed. He further questioned if Mr. Johnston had been in contact with the Army Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Johnston responded that he had verified with Town Engineer George Montz that there was no need to do anything with the Army Corps of Engineers. The Engineering Department had approved the grading and drainage plan and the Army Corps of Engineers was not involved.

Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati stated that Erie County had a concern about the driveway on Sublot 6 and the fact that it had to cross their easement. Mrs. Salvati understood that Mr. Johnston had spoken to Erie County about this and they reached an agreement where they would allow the driveway to cross the easement with conditions. Erie County was also concerned about drainage from Sublot Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and they did not want it going out into East & West Road. There was no storm sewer there and only a six-inch underdrain that was not designed as a storm sewer. The county was concerned about regrading the lots and would not allow roof top drainage or sump pump drainage to connect to or discharge into the right-of-way.

Mr. Johnston responded that the grading and drainage plan showed where the drainage currently went, and the plan kept that consistent.

Mr. Mendola noted that the rooftop and driveway water would flow a lot quicker than the existing drainage.

Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski stated that the sump pumps and roof drainage should go to the rear yard drainage, which will have to be at a lower height, and that will flow along the east side into the creek.

Mr. Johnston stated that the lots that front on East & West Road were “A” lots, which drain from the back to the front, the way the current land is graded. There was no back yard drainage there, and he did not think they should change the lay of the land.

Mr. Czuprynski stated that when the property owners apply for a building permit, his office might require that the drainage go to an enclosed system rather than splash pans.

2007-A    (continued)
Mr. Johnston hoped that this would not be required and stated that this was why he submitted a grading and drainage plan for Town Engineer George Montz to review that was comprehensive for the entire subdivision. A lot of the pipe drainage was removed from the plan as a measure to try to conserve the trees and vegetation on the property. Mr. Montz was aware of the concerns of Erie County when he approved the grading and drainage plan submitted.

Mrs. Salvati referred to correspondence she had received this date from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in response to the SEQR for this project. They commented on the following: 1) Dirty Creek and the fact that it is not a protected stream, so they had no jurisdiction; 2) the amount and percentage of soils on the site with hydric inclusions; 3) whether the Army Corps of Engineers had signed off and if there were any DEC wetlands on the site; 4) the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) and the required Notice of Intent. Mrs. Salvati contacted the NYSDEC this date to inform them that Mr. Johnston had submitted a revised environmental assessment form, a new drawing that indicated other changes, and a wetlands delineation that identified a 2.7 acre jurisdictional wetland along the channel but no DEC wetlands, and she faxed them these documents. Mrs. Salvati was told by a representative from the DEC that they might not accept the wetlands reports because it was five years old and they might want to be sure on whether or not there were DEC wetlands on the site. She had not received a response prior to this meeting. Mrs. Salvati did not believe they would find any DEC wetlands on the property, but she would not comment on the Army Corps of Engineers because they had not yet looked at the wetlands delineation. She had indicated to the DEC that the new environmental assessment form indicated less disturbance (under five acres), so a SPDES’ permit should not be required.

Mr. Rathmann questioned the private storm sewer easement located in the federally jurisdictional wetlands.

Mr. Johnston responded that this was as per the Town Engineer in case any maintenance had to be done, and it would be the responsibility of the homeowners.

Mr. Rathmann had a problem with federal jurisdictional wetlands and the Army Corps of Engineers not having looked at it.

Mr. Johnston stated that the discharge of storm water into a federal jurisdictional wetland was not considered an impact, so the Army Corps of Engineers was not involved. Mr. Johnston further stated that he had not prepared the wetlands delineation, but it was very typical for wetlands to be on the banks of a ditch, 5 to 10 feet on either side, and the ditch itself.

2007-A    (continued)
Mrs. Salvati referred to the indication on the plat that woodlands would be preserved and a large portion of Sublots 8 and 9 that would not be developed and questioned how this would be enforced so the SPDES’ requirements would not be violated.

Mr. Johnston responded that this would be up to the town and the property owner, but the easiest way would be with a deed restriction.

Mr. Mendola noted that Erie County had specifically stated in their letter that they would not be responsible for repairing the driveway located in the easement if it is damaged by equipment required to work on the culvert. He thought this should also be a deed restriction.

Deputy Town Attorney Paul Notaro stated that this was not like a regular sewer easement that involved the first 15’ of a driveway. This easement was for a 55’ length portion of the driveway, and that would be a significant dollar value to the property owner. Mr. Notaro did not believe that this should be treated lightly. He also suggested that the Planning Board be sure of the NYSDEC’s position on this project before a problem is created. Mr. Notaro thought that this item should be tabled to address these issues.

Mrs. Salvati agreed and stated that if the Planning Board were to act on this request at this time they would have to issue a negative declaration, and she would not recommend they do this without knowing where the NYSDEC stands.

Mr. Johnston stated that they would be willing to attach something to the deed to make the property owner aware of the easement.

Mr. Hunter suggested reconfiguring Lots No. 5 & 6 and moving the corner of Lot No. 6 to the west to give that lot additional land to locate the driveway outside the easement, but then they would be going over the creek.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mendola, seconded by Hunter, to table the request for final approval of the proposed nine-lot Globa Subdivision located on East & West Road and Angle Road.

On the question, Mr. Johnston questioned when the SEQR was sent out to the NYSDEC and other agencies.

2007-A    (continued)
Mrs. Salvati responded that this was sent out on August 20th. Their comments were faxed to her this date and mailed to the Planning Board members.

Mr. Johnston questioned if a fax could be considered a response within the specified time frame.

Mr. Notaro stated that faxes and e-mails were deemed delivery and Mrs. Salvati had received the fax and forwarded the information on to the Planning Board members.

NEW BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS

2007-10
A request from Anthony Scaccia for a rezoning for property located at 3606 Seneca Street, being part of Lot No. 155, changing its classification from R-65 to C-1, for a barber shop.

Motion by Mendola, seconded by Nigro, to open the public hearing.

Chairman Ciancio stated that along with the application the Planning Board had received a survey, deed description, short environmental assessment form, and a site plan.

Anthony Scaccia, 1594 Lakeview Road, Lakeview, stated that he was in the process of purchasing 3606 Seneca Street contingent upon approval of a rezoning from R-65 to C-1 with the intention of using the property for a barber shop. The shop would be open five to six days a week with hours of operation from 9 A.M. until 6 P.M. Mr. Scaccia wanted to change the front of the structure to make it more appealing and have parking in the front and rear. The existing garage would be demolished. The property to the west was currently zoned for commercial use and used to be an insurance office but was recently purchased by a doctor. The property to the east was residential, but there were other offices and businesses in the general area and EduKids was located directly across the street. Mr. Scaccia stated that he has operated a barber shop in South Buffalo for more than 20 years and he hoped to open this second location and run both of them for a time.

2007-10    (continued)
Chairman Ciancio commented that the proposed use was compatible with the existing zoning in the area which was for small businesses. He referred to the proposal for parking in the front of the building and asked if all the parking could be moved to the rear.

Mr. Scaccia responded that it was difficult to get people accustomed to parking behind a business. Also, he wanted the entrance to be in the front and customers would then have to walk around from the back to enter the building. Mr. Scaccia stated that he and the other employees would park in the rear.

Chairman Ciancio stated that the aesthetics of Seneca Street was considered in the revised Master Plan. He suggested reducing the parking in front to two spaces.

Mr. Scaccia thought it was important for his business to maximize parking as much as possible, especially in the front.

Mr. Hunter questioned how many chairs there would be for customers.

Mr. Scaccia responded that there would be three chairs. He referred to the property to the west that was going to be a doctor’s office and noted that they maximized parking in the front as he would like to.

Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski stated that nine parking spaces were required for three chairs.

Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati noted that a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for parking in the front yard.

Mr. Rathmann questioned if the property to the east was zoned for residential or commercial use.

Mr. Scaccia stated that the property to the east was a residence but he was not sure what it was zoned. Almost all of Seneca Street from Union Road to Ridge Road was zoned commercial, but there were about seven parcels that were still zoned residential.

Mr. Mendola commented on the aesthetics of parking in the front of the business.

2007-10    (continued)
Mr. Scaccia stated that he would not be blacktopping the entire front. There would be landscaping in front of the building and a grass area with landscaping and signage along the street. The parking spaces would be positioned so that when looking at the front of the building only one vehicle would be visible with other vehicles stacked behind that vehicle. The front of the building would not be littered with vehicles.

Mr. Niederpruem questioned what lighting would be installed and if Mr. Scaccia would use a dumpster.

Mr. Scaccia responded that lights will be mounted on the building and directed toward the parking lot, the side, and the rear of the building. He would use garbage cans rather than a dumpster.

Mr. Niederpruem suggested that Mr. Scaccia move parking space #1 to the rear of the building to allow for more green space in the front.

Mr. Scaccia preferred not to move any parking from the front, but would agree to move one space if required to do so.

Mrs. Salvati noted that Mr. Scaccia would have to return to the Planning Board for site plan review and they could address the parking issue at that time.

Mr. Rathmann noted that the driveway was only 12 feet wide which would prevent ingress/egress at the same time.

Mr. Scaccia responded that he could make the driveway wider but thought that a 12-foot driveway would look better aesthetically.

Mr. Rathmann stated that the width of the driveway would have to be increased to 25 feet to allow vehicles to enter and exit at the same time. He further questioned why the parking lot at the rear was so wide when it only needed to be 43’ wide to accommodate an aisle and parking.

Mr. Scaccia stated that he wanted to maximize the parking and also have a place to plow snow without losing any parking spaces.

2007-10    (continued)
Jim Rogowski, 3610 Seneca Street, lives directly to the east of the property and stated that the driveway was about a foot higher than his property and the house was about three feet higher. The two windows on the east were directly across from his bathroom and lighting on that side of the building would shine in his bathroom window. Mr. Rogowski was also concerned about snow removal causing water problems in his back yard.

Mr. Niederpruem suggested a six-foot stockade fence between the properties.

Mr. Czuprynski stated that the fence would have to start at the rear of the house, but the Zoning Board of Appeals could grant a variance for the fence to start closer to the front. Drainage would have to be installed in the rear yard and that should prevent any water problem and resolve any existing water problem.

Mr. Rogowski did not believe that a six-foot fence would help with his privacy issue.

Chairman Ciancio suggested opaque windows on that side of the building.

Mr. Niederpruem stated that screening would be addressed during the site plan review process.

Motion by Mendola, seconded by Hunter, to close the public hearing.

Motion by Niederpruem, seconded by Hunter, to recommend approval of the request for a rezoning for property located at 3606 Seneca Street, being part of Lot No. 155, changing its classification from R-65 to C-1, for a barber shop.

SPR2007-01
A request from FFAEB Architects for site plan review for property located at 146 Reserve Road, being part of Lot No. 370, for additions and alterations to Trinity Lutheran Church.

Chairman Ciancio noted that this addition was 1610 square feet and the church would be ADA compliant upon completion of the project.

SPR2007-01    (continued)
Jim Bammel of FFAEB Architects stated that the project involved a 27’ x 63’ addition to the rear of Trinity Lutheran Church on the parking lot side and a porte cochere for protective cover at the entrance to the building. This will be 1610 square feet of floor space built over 90 percent paved area. Green space will be slightly increased and provide a buffer to the revised parking area. Runoff will not be increased by any measure and the drainage will tie into everything below grade and go back out to the street as it currently does. Two lights were proposed for the exterior – one on the side of the building at the exit from the lower level and one under the porte cochere. Mr. Bammel stated that the project will allow for offices and a meeting room at grade level and provide a lift for handicapped accessibility.

Chairman Ciancio noted the residence to the west of the church and questioned if this addition could cause a problem.

Mr. Bammel did not foresee any problem and stated that there were several trees between the properties. The addition would be non-visible to anyone other than those parking at the rear of the church.

Mr. Niederpruem questioned if the parking lot would be decreased.

Mr. Bammel responded that the parking lot would be increased by five spaces as required for the 1600 square foot addition. Parking for the church was short by the Town Code, but that was pre-existing for over 20 years and had been adequate.

Dave Broderdorf, 245 Independence, Orchard Park, President of the congregation at Trinity Lutheran Church, stated that parking had never been a problem in the 20 years he was involved with the church. The parking lot was slightly increased six years ago to add space near the cemetery and add a basketball area.

Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati referred to added spaces 107 to 110 that were parallel to the entry and suggested that those be eliminated and parking spaces be continued after spaces 1 and 2.

Mr. Bammel stated that additional paving would be required to do that and the additional spaces really were not necessary. If parking really became a problem, the parallel spaces would work and did conform.

Chairman Ciancio stated that there was some concern about fencing and the church abutting a residential zoning.

Deputy Town Attorney Paul Notaro stated that there was existing screening and it might be enough to satisfy the Town Code.

SPR2007-01    (continued)
Mr. Rathmann suggested relocating handicapped parking spaces #105 & #106 for safety purposes.

Motion by Ciancio, seconded by Niederpruem, to issue a negative declaration with regard to SEQR on the additions and alterations to Trinity Lutheran Church located at 146 Reserve Road.

Motion by Mendola, seconded by Rathmann, to grant site plan approval of the additions and alterations to Trinity Lutheran Church located at 146 Reserve Road, conditioned upon the handicapped parking being relocated for safety purposes.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Niederpruem, seconded by Mendola, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 P.M.

PATRICIA C. DEPASQUALE, RMC/CMC
SECRETARY