West Seneca Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01/10/2008
Chairman Joseph Ciancio called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. followed by the Pledge to the Flag.
ROLL CALL: Present -
Paul Notaro, Deputy Town Attorney
William P. Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer
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 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 #2007-11 of December 13, 2007.
NEW BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
A request from Daniel & Kristen Vivian for site plan approval for a day care center located at 3729 Seneca Street, West Seneca, New York.
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Rathmann, to open the public hearing.
Chairman Ciancio stated that the Board has reviewed the request and noted that the recommendations made at the last meeting have not been met.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati stated that in reviewing the application, it was determined that the site plan as submitted was missing the following required information:
James Wittmann, Architect, disagreed with the parking which has been discussed with Mr. Czuprynski who made the determination that it was 1 parking space per 350 sq ft of building area and that the parking layout as shown met the required number of spaces.
Mr. Ciancio stated that 7 staff people leaves 4 parking spaces which is not sufficient. 15 spaces are required.
Mr. Wittmann responded that in previous conversations, Mr. Czuprynski stated the parking lot as shown was correct based on the 350 sq ft of building area that the petitioner will be using for daycare.
Daniel Vivian stated that Mr. Czuprynski had agreed on 11 spaces.
Ms. Salvati cited from minutes of the November 8, 2007 meeting, “Mr. Czuprynski stated that although the Town Code did not specifically address day care centers, he determined that the parking should be one space for every 100 square feet. Mr. Wittmann stated that they obviously needed one space for every employee and additional parking for people dropping off and picking up children, but he thought one space for every 100 square feet was excessive and they would have a large, empty parking lot. Mr. Czuprynski stated that with 28 children there would be a lot of vehicles at certain times of the day. Mr. Reilly agreed that a number of vehicles could be dropping off or picking up children at the same time. Parking would be a difficult issue and they might either require a variance or require more spaces for the first phase. Mr. Wittmann stated that it would be impractical to install parking any further to the rear of the property because there was a considerable slope going to the soccer field. Mr. Czuprynski commented that when dropping off or picking up children the vehicles would probably stack in the driveway rather than park. He suggested eliminating parking spaces #6 thru #11 so that vehicles had room to turn around and would not have to back up out of a parking space. Mr. Wittmann thought that they would apply for a variance for the number of parking spaces and hoped that they could come up with something that was a reasonable compromise for what was necessary and what would fit on the site.”
Mr. Wittmann stated it was at a later date that Mr. Czuprynski referred to something he found that 11 spaces were correct and there was no need to apply for a variance. The majority of the site is existing and he questioned the need for drainage information on an existing building and parking lot. He is adding a 43 ft x 10 ft area of paving and the rest already exists. The building addition is only 480 sq ft.
Ms. Salvati suggested that the Board could issue an approval based on satisfaction of the drainage by the Town Engineer and other information.
Her concern was the conundrum now raised with the parking issue, because Mr. Czuprynski did state on the record 100 sq ft. Now, Mr. Wittmann is stating that Mr. Czuprynski in return told him 350 sq ft but the Board was not informed of this and Mr. Czuprynski is not present to clarify the issue.
Mr. Vivian stated he was prepared to proceed with the 11 parking spaces, but he is agreeable to 15.
Ms. Salvati stated her concern is that there is a record in front of the Board stating that the applicant needs 24 parking spaces and there is no documentation showing that he does not require that number of spaces. Proper procedure should be followed.
Deputy Attorney Paul Notaro commented that if the Planning Board makes the approval conditioned on the drainage approval of the Town Engineer, the 1 space per 350 sq ft rule can be verified and then everything will be complied with. Those two conditions would suffice.
Mr. Wittmann stated they were not planning on putting in any parking lot lighting since it is not open at night and there is an intersection at Hilldale which is extremely well lit. There will be 3 lights at each of the entrances which will be regular incandescent style lighting.
Mr. Rathmann commented that in the winter months there is a period of three or four months when it could be potentially dark in the back corner as people are picking up children after 4:30 p.m. or later, and the daycare center is adjacent to the park.
Mr. Wittmann stated the intersection at Hilldale provides sufficient lighting, but there could be a spotlight placed on the garage.
Mr. Vivian stated he had no problem with putting a sensor light up to assist a parent when leaving with a child.
Mr. Mendola referred to Mr. Wittmann’s comments that this is an existing site. The previous owner may have had problems but this is before the Board for site plan approval and it is their obligation to ensure that the plan submitted by Mr. Vivian and Mr. Wittmann is proper.
Mr. Wittmann stated there is sufficient yard to the rear where there is a natural pitch and he felt the Town Engineer would agree that drainage to the large grass area is no problem, but he is willing to do shot grades.
Mr. Mendola suggested that Mr. Wittmann speak with the Town Engineer prior to doing anything on the site.
Mr. Rathmann noted that handicapped parking was not provided.
Mr. Wittmann stated he did not show handicapped parking on the plan and is aware he needs to provide one per code. He intended to place the handicapped parking space at space #15 because there is a driveway there that leads to the door. He would post a sign on the face of the garage for handicapped parking and allow for access to the parking space to be also the common driveway that leads to the garage.
Mr. Rathmann noted that a sidewalk also needs to be provided to get to the handicapped ramp.
Mr. Wittmann stated it is shown on the floor plan but is not shown on the site plan.
Mr. Rathmann questioned the width of the driveway and the location of the sidewalk.
Mr. Wittmann stated the driveway is 20 ft wide and the sidewalk shown on the aerial photo is along the side of the building.
Mr. Greenan noted the plan shows a paved walk in front of the drawing which is an extension of blacktop from the drainage ditch.
Mr. Wittmann reviewed the location of the sidewalk with Board members, as well as his field measurements.
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Nigro, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Mr. Greenan, seconded by Mr. Mendola, to recommend site plan approval for a day care center located at 3729 Seneca Street, West Seneca, New York, conditioned on the following:
1. Approval of site drainage by the Town Engineer.
2. Space #15 will be designated as a handicapped parking space and
3. A motion sensor light will be placed on the garage to provide lighting safety to the back portion of the back portion of the proposed parking area.
4. All 15 parking spaces will be provided now under Phase I and that the site plan be revised to remove the words “future parking”.
On the question, Mr. Rathmann requested the addition of a sidewalk to the conditions and Ms. Salvati cited the requirements under Article VI of the Site Plan regulations to provide 3 street trees and the requirement of a sign permit.
Motion by Mr. Greenan, seconded by Mr. Mendola, to amend the motion to include the following conditions:
5. A sidewalk be provided from the handicapped parking space to the new handicapped ramp.
6. Planting of three deciduous street trees, in conformance with Article VI of the Site Plan regulations.
7. Applicant shall obtain a sign permit prior to the construction or placement of any signage.
On the amended motion,
A request from Walter Kolkiewicz for pre-application approval of the proposed 24-lot subdivision located on Seneca Creek Road.
Chairman Ciancio stated this matter was before the Board previously and the Planning Board had requested some revisions.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati noted that the Board had indicated that part of the property is located in a R65 district and part in a R100 district. The petitioner had been instructed to revise the building lots to meet the code requirements of the R100 zoning district, specifically that the building lots be 100 ft wide with a 20,000 sq ft minimum lot size. The
revised plan now shows more lots with none meeting the R100 zoning requirements. There is also now a cul-de-sac 1100 ft long, contrary to the code which states a cul-de-sac should be generally no longer than 500 ft long. The previously submitted plan was a better site layout.
Walter Kolkiewicz stated he met with Mr. Czuprynski following the last meeting and was advised to eliminate the one lot in the front on Seneca Creek Road, make four lots a little bigger, and that he should go with 75 ft frontage on the lots. There will not necessarily be the number of lots as shown on the plan. He is requesting pre-approval so that the plan can be sent to Engineering Department.
Deputy Attorney Notaro stated the plan as submitted shows a subdivision in what is a R100 zoned property with 75 ft lots. If the petitioner intends on rezoning the property, a completely different process must be followed. As the plan submitted is designed, it is in complete conflict with the code and the property would require rezoning before the Board would even consider the submitted plan. Petitioner was instructed at the last meeting that the plan needed to conform to the terms of the code, which is R100.
Chairman Ciancio suggested that the petitioner meet with the Consultant in order to come up with a plan that meets the code.
Ms. Salvati advised the petitioner and his engineer to meet with Sarah desJardins to determine whether to proceed with the first plan and apply for rezoning or to develop a plan that meets the zoning requirements. In any event, because of the steep drop below the top of the stream bank and the floodplain, the Planning Board would not want to see lots extending further back.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Rathmann, that the West Seneca Planning Board officers remain the same for the year 2008.
Motion by Mendola, seconded by Nigro, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
PATRICIA C. DEPASQUALE, RMC/CMC