West Seneca Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/13/2007
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
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 Nigro, seconded by Rathmann, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Rathmann, seconded by Mendola, to approve Minutes #2007-10 of November 8, 2007.
OLD BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Ciancio stated that the petitioner had submitted information from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as previously requested by the Planning Board.
The petitioner was not present at the meeting.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Niederpruem, to table this item until 8:00 P.M.
NEW BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
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.
Heather Horth represented Mark Alianello, the project engineer, and Frank Sergi, the petitioner.
Chairman Ciancio questioned if Ms. Horth had met with the Code Enforcement Office with regard to the parking for the project.
Ms. Horth stated that she had spoken on the telephone with Asst. Code Enforcement Officer Robert Pinnavaia and she was presenting updated plans at this meeting. The amended plan showed the front building with 720 square feet of office space and 4680 square feet of manufacturing space. The parking requirement was calculated to be a total of 14 spaces, so the original plan was amended to include five spaces in the rear. Seven spaces were also added at the rear for the storage building. The Engineering Department had reviewed the plans and a hydrant was added in front of the building in response to their comments.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati stated that a question arose whether the overflow parking requirement has been met.
Ms. Horth stated she was unsure of what was meant by the overflow parking.
Mr. Czuprynski explained that overflow parking refers to the extra parking that may be required according to the bulk area of the building. He was unable to calculate that figure without a further review of the plans.
Ms Horth stated that the plans have not essentially changed, other than they previously were unaware that the office space required additional parking and that additional parking has been provided for the mixed use as partial office and partial embroidery manufacturing facility.
Ms. Salvati stated that the petitioner’s plan had been reviewed, along with comments from the Town Engineer in a letter dated November 20, 2007. In a letter dated December 7, 2007, Ms. Horth indicated that these comments and the oral comments received from the DOT were addressed by the petitioner. As a result, the plan was changed to widen the driveway to a 25 ft minimum width and the curb cut was widened to 40 ft at Transit Road. The use of the building as part office and part embroidery manufacturing has been clarified, especially as it pertains to parking. Five additional parking spaces and seven in the rear have been added, as discussed with Mr. Pinnavaia from the Building Department. A variance will be requested to waive the blacktop requirements in the rear portion of the lot. A hydrant has been proposed at the front of the lot, per the Town Engineer. The proposed private sewer force main has been moved out of the DOT right of way into a private easement. The applicant will also provide two additional trees at the front of the lot to meet the code requirement of deciduous street trees every 40 ft out front.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Hunter, to approve the plan bearing date November 9, 2007 with a revision date of November 29, 2007, and grant site plan approval for property located at the corner of Transit Road and Bullis Road, being part of Lot No. 362, for a construction office and embroidery manufacturing, noting that two additional trees are required to comply with the ordinance and there shall be hard, non-porous paving in all parking and driving areas.
On the question, Mr. Greenan stated that the petitioner would have to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals if they did not want to pave the parking area.
Mr. Mendola questioned if sprinklers were required in the two buildings.
Mr. Czuprynski responded that there was no way of telling at this point if sprinklers were or were not required.
Mr. Mendola did not believe that the proposed 1˝ inch copper water line was sufficient to service the two buildings, possible sprinkler systems, and any kind of fire suppression.
Ms. Horth responded that the 1˝-inch line was sized at that because there was only 45 pounds of pressure at that line. Per the Erie County Water Authority, they had to
put a reduced pressure assembly on the line, so that would drop the pressure to 35 pounds. A hydrant flow test was performed by the Erie County Water Authority and was documented in the Engineer’s Report.
Chairman Ciancio referred to the driveway and questioned if Ms. Horth had any conversation with the NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) regarding it.
Ms. Horth responded that she had spoken to a representative of the NYSDOT engineering staff and forwarded him a copy of the plans. He made verbal comments to the plans and the comments were addressed in the revised plan and resubmitted.
Mr. Rathmann questioned the type signage planned for the building.
Ms. Horth responded there would just be a sign on the building with the address.
Town Attorney Greenan expressed concern the Code Enforcement Officer may determine at a later date that additional parking is needed, necessitating this being brought back to the Planning Board. He noted there was ample paving area and suggested the approval be conditioned on any additional parking required in the future be placed in the spots so designated by the Code Enforcement Officer, without the need for petitioner to return before the Planning Board.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Hunter, to amend the motion to include that it be subject to any additional parking required in the future being placed in the spots so designated by the Code Enforcement Officer, without the need for petitioner to return before the Planning Board.
2007-AA public hearing to consider final approval of the proposed 9-lot Globa Subdivision located on East & West Road.
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Greenan, to open the public hearing.
Pete Johnston, P.E., Wm Schutt & Associates, P.C., 37 Central Avenue, Lancaster, appeared on behalf of petitioner. Since his last appearance before this Board, the DEC performed an on-site delineation and confirmed that there are no State wetlands
on the property and it has relinquished the right of lead agency to the Town. It also clarified the SPDES issue, stating that because the project is under five acres of disturbance, it is not necessary to gain permit coverage. Further, as each individual lot comes in for a building permit, coverage is not necessary under the SPDES permit as long as the lot is under one acre of disturbance. Mr. Johnston met with the County DPW and explained that the project was a subdivision of land and that curb cut permits would not be sought at this time. Each individual lot will make a request for a curb cut. He cited portions of a letter dated November 13, 2007 from the County DPW which stated it “would allow the installation of a driveway across the easement adjacent to its culvert, with the stipulation that prior to the Town of West Seneca issuing a building permit, a driveway permit is submitted. At that time, the application would include a complete drawing indicating the location of the driveway, adjacent driveways, the roadway, existing and proposed grades, existing and proposed guide rails and all pertinent topography. The land along East & West Road proposed for the subdivision currently drains towards East & West Road. There is no storm sewer to collect this runoff other than a 6-inch underdrain along the edge of the road. The proposed grading of the lots suggests that stormwater will continue to drain towards East & West Road. The Town of West Seneca typically requires that roof drains and sump pumps connect to a storm sewer at the road. Erie County will not allow the direct connection to our underdrain system. However, Erie County has no objection to the roof drains and sump pumps discharging to a splash block and flowing overland to the road if the flow generated is no greater than present and leaves no standing water. Should it be necessary to move the guiderail on final placement of the driveway the contractor would be required to pay for this relocation cost.” Mr. Johnston further stated he also had approval, albeit not in writing at this time, from the County of Erie Health Department, based on his submission of hydrant flow information. The Planning Board had also placed a notation to the drainage plan that the wooded areas in the rear of some of the lots would remain undisturbed, based on the concern that some of the wooded areas were wetlands. It has now been determined that there are no wetlands. Mr. Johnson requested that condition be removed so as to not restrict a person purchasing one of those lots on the use of those specified areas.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Hunter, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to grant final approval of the proposed 9-lot Globa Subdivision located on East & West Road in its last form presented to the Planning Board, with the exception that the notation appearing in the wooded area in the northwest corner be removed from the map.
Motion by Niederpruem, seconded by Greenan, to issue a Negative Declaration with regard to SEQR for the Globa Subdivision located on East & West Road.
Ralph C. Lorigo, Esq., 101 Slade Avenue, appeared on behalf of petitioner Eugene Piotrowski on a proposed subdivision off Conner and Camelot Drive. Previous submission to this Board included a proposed patio home project which was opposed by numerous neighbors due to density issues. A subdivision running from East & West Road to Reserve with one entrance was then proposed. Petitioner is now proposing a 33-lot subdivision which has two entrances and meets the subdivision code for R-75 zoning in response to the comments of the Planning Board following its review of the project The lots are for the most part 75 ft x 134 ft, with a number of deeper lots 75 ft x 185 ft. Mr. Piotrowski has developed a number of lots along Angle Road and this is the newer part of his subdivision. The last two houses sold for $400,000 and the next house is due to close at $389,000. The type homes being built clearly upgrade the area and generate substantial tax revenue to the town. The Planning Board had previously requested information on the sewers but they cannot comply with that until such time as approval is received from this Board in order for Mr. Piotrowski to go to the County. It has been his past experience with other subdivision developments that permits are granted on an individual basis. Sewer connections are necessary in order to construct the homes, but that does not prevent the Planning Board from approving a subdivision plan if it meets with the code.
Mr. Ciancio noted that petitioner may not receive approvals in a year from now. Petitioner would then have to reappear before this Board and begin the procedure over again.
Mr. Lorigo stated he was aware of that possibility. The project must proceed in stages and the first step is to get the approval of this Board. The homes cannot be built without sewer taps.
Mr. Greenan asked if thought had been given to the storm water detention within the bounds of this subdivision.
2007-D (Continued)Mr. Hunter noted that is a SPDES requirement and was addressed the last time the issue was raised.
Mr. Lorigo agreed that the issues of the location of drainage and whether it should be held in some type of detention pond is a Planning Board issue.
Mr. Greenan asked clarification on the east-west road, whether it was a paper street or simply unnamed as yet.
Mr. Lorigo stated the street was unnamed at this point.
Mr. Greenan also noted that the unusual radius at the corner, 15 ft.
Mr. Niederpruem asked why the lots on the west side of the street are 10,050 sq ft while the lots on the east side are 13,946. It would seem from a marketing standpoint that the petitioner would want to balance the lot sizes and shift the road east.
Mr. Lorigo felt the answer to that issue lies in some piece of the engineering that he is unaware of at this point.
Mr. Ciancio noted that if the lots were moved, the cul-de-sac would infringe on the lots in the corner.
Mr. Niederpruem stated that if the street was moved 10 ft, the area of lot #22 would be affected the most.
Mr. Hunter noted that if the proposed street was moved east 10 ft, instead of steering the cul-de-sac to the east, then having it come out and bubble at the end straight, lot #22 would not be impacted as severely.
Mr. Lorigo noted there must be an engineering reason why it’s set over that far.
Mr. Niederpruem stated the whole offset T-configuration from Camelot to the proposed street appears to be poorly planned.
Mr. Hunter noted that it appears sanitation trucks would have to pull down the stub and then turn around in someone’s driveway to get back out.
Ms. Salvati noted a question was raised on segmentation based on the much larger plan that had been submitted at the last meeting.
Mr. Lorigo responded that petitioner owns a great deal more land. It was noted at the last presentation before the Board that the subdivision was too long to the cul-de-sac and there was not enough access. Mr. Piotrowski has been attempting to purchase additional property on Reserve. It was then decided to do the northern part of the subdivision, with two entrances, resulting in the proposal that is now before the Board.
Ms. Salvati questioned whether there was more to come and noted this presents a possible SEQR segmentation.
Mr. Lorigo stated there was no way to do anything further at this point and time because the petitioner does not own enough property to fit within the code.
Mr. Niederpruem stated he would like to see a symmetrical T.
Mr. Rathmann preferred seeing the road bent at 90 degrees at the corner and then turn in.
Mr. Lorigo noted that sublot #2 could be made smaller and there is ample land.
Mr. Rathmann noted that storm water detention is required and suggested extending south another 500 ft., and depending on the topography of the land, take water from the north end to the south end, if feasible.
Mr. Ciancio noted that would change the entire configuration of the subdivision.
Mr. Lorigo agreed, but that is not the plan before the Board. He will discuss the possibility of reconfiguring this at another time, extending south the 500 ft, but that is not the proposal at this point. The sewer issue cannot be handled at this stage. The other issues of uneven lots, the T-configuration, and temporary turnaround can be addressed in a modified plan.
Ms. Salvati noted that situations arise where problems can be worked out with the DEC for designing a mitigation plan.
Town Attorney Greenan also noted that the Town Engineer and the town are under an order in terms of compliance and are working with the DEC to trade off the mitigation in sewer district #13. The town has also taken the position that if someone came in with a major subdivision, a proposal could be submitted, for example, to donate an amount of money for lining pipe in an older subdivision that would eliminate an amount of inflow which gives the capacity for what is being proposed.
Mr. Rathmann suggested another option, that in the event the Reserve Road access is obtained, bring the cul-de-sac in from Reserve Road and use that as a common detention area.
Ms. Salvati commented that petitioner may want to get access to Reserve Road because everything relies now on two points of access. Lots do meet code and conform to the master plan. There is no reason why this project cannot proceed to the preliminary plat stage and begin the SEQR process. It remains to be determined whether there are wetlands on the site, which is part of the SEQR process.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Rathmann, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
PATRICIA C. DEPASQUALE, RMC/CMC