West Seneca Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09/10/2009
Chairman Robert Niederpruem 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
Wendy Salvati, Planning Consultant
Jeffrey Harrington, Deputy Town Attorney
Absent - Jim Rathmann, Joseph Sherman
Chairman Robert Niederpruem 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 Ciancio, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Nigro, seconded by Ciancio, to approve Minutes #2009-06 of June 11, 2009.
NEW BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
David Powers, 2845 Crittenden Road, Alden, stated that he purchased the property at 2510 Seneca Street, and made improvements to it along with a new parking lot and landscaping. He would like to display 3 or 4 used but newer vehicles for sale. Mr. Powers understood that there could be a sight distance problem coming off of Chamberlin Drive and stated that the vehicles would not be displayed in a way that would cause a problem.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that there were some conditions for adding the special permit that were code requirements such as green space, buffers, and fencing, and the site plan did not indicate those things. A 10’ green space buffer with screening was required along the rear of the property that abuts the residential neighborhood and 10’ of green space along Seneca Street.
Attorney Kenneth Bernas, 1299 Union Road, represented the petitioner and stated that Mr. Powers owns a one-foot area at the rear of the building.
Mr. Powers stated that he had no intention of using that area. He removed the tree stumps from that area and was maintaining the grass.
Mr. Mendola stated that in order to conform to the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Powers would have to have 10’ of green space at the rear.
Mr. Bernas stated that this location was previously used as an automotive repair shop and the 10’ of green space was not there and was not required. Mr. Powers improved the aesthetics of the repair shop and he was only seeking to sell a maximum of two vehicles at a time on the property. That was the only change and there was no additional green space available. If he were to add green space it would take away from parking that was needed for the business.
Mr. Mendola stated that the Town Code stipulates what is required and they would have to conform to the zoning change. In reviewing the site plan it appeared to him that parking space #1, #6, & #9 would be affected by the green space requirement.
Mr. Bernas stated that the change was very minute. There would only be a maximum of two vehicles on display at one time.
Mr. Ciancio questioned how many employees there were.
Mr. Powers responded that he and his son were the only employees and he only wanted to display two cars for sale at a time to supplement the repair shop.
Mr. Ciancio stated that if Mr. Powers and his son are the only employees he will not need as much parking and could eliminate space #6 & #9 and make it green space.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati stated that the parking requirement was complicated. Right now there were two bays and three parking spaces per bay were required along with parking for employees. In addition, if Mr. Powers wants to sell cars there are other parking requirements that come into play. Mrs. Salvati stated that nine spaces were indicated on the site plan, but that did not leave any room for display of vehicles. It also did not take into account setbacks. Mr. Powers could apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals because of pre-existing conditions, but he would have to accurately calculate the parking needs and how he will be able to meet that on the site.
Mr. Bernas stated that only one bay was being used so that frees up space for displaying a vehicle.
Mr. Mendola stated that even if only one bay is used the building was set up for two bays so he would have to provide parking accordingly.
Mrs. Salvati reviewed the parking requirements for sale of new or used vehicles and stated that it is not based on the number of cars for sale, it is based on the use.
Mr. Bernas did not believe this was relevant because Mr. Powers only wanted to sell two vehicles at a time.
Code Enforcement Officer William Czuprynski suggested that Mr. Powers apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance.
Mrs. Salvati questioned where vehicles awaiting repair are stored on the site.
Mr. Bernas stated that the repair shop is existing and they were not there to question the viability of the repair shop.
Mrs. Salvati responded that she was not questioning the viability of the repair shop. She was questioning how Mr. Powers will meet the code requirements to have enough room on the site to store vehicles awaiting repair, park cars to be sold, park cars for employees, and park cars for any other customers. Mrs. Salvati stated that the Planning Board did not have the ability to tell Mr. Powers that he did not have to comply with what the Town Code says. If he applies to the Zoning Board of Appeals he will still have to show them some kind of plan that delineates what he wants to do.
Mr. Bernas requested that the Planning Board table this request until an application is made to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to table this item until Mr. Powers returns with a plan that conforms with the ordinance, including variances.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that this project was before the Planning Board about two months ago for a rezoning. He referred to the parking plan dated August 28th and noted that the parking behind Buffalo Optical was removed.
Daryl Martin, Architect, explained the building space being used by Home & Office and what will be used by the 1000 sf retail store and restaurant. He stated that currently there is a loading dock, dumpster and parking in the rear of the property. Mr. Young was proposing landscaping with a 10’ buffer and three or four Honey Locust trees along Garden Avenue, a new dumpster pad with fencing, filling in the existing loading dock, repaving the rear parking area and adding more parking, and adding a door on the back of the restaurant. Mr. Martin anticipated the rear door being used by employees more than by patrons of the restaurant.
Chairman Niederpruem questioned if the concrete dock will be taken out.
Mr. Martin stated that they would remove the concrete and then fill it in and repave the rear lot.
Chairman Niederpruem thought the location of the dumpster was acceptable along with the landscaping proposed for the Garden Avenue side of the property. He questioned the plan for Seneca Street.
Bryan Young of Young Development stated that he could plant a few trees in the front of the property. He was in the landscape business and wanted the site to look as nice as possible. They had already put in a new lawn, a new sign, painted the building, and repaved the front parking lot. All the requirements for parking have been met, but he had no problem adding some landscaping in the front.
Chairman Niederpruem commented that the Planning Board liked what was done on Garden Avenue and would like to see that also on Seneca Street. He further referred to the curb cut between Keybank and this site and stated that it was very wide and very open. Chairman Niederpruem questioned if Mr. Young had any discussion with Keybank about this.
Mr. Young stated that he wanted to work out a cross easement for mutual parking, but the owner of the building is out-of-state and Keybank would not talk to him.
Chairman Niederpruem noted that seating within the building was reduced from 52 to 40 and there was no seating at the bar.
Mr. Young stated that service of alcohol will cease at 11 P.M.
Mr. Mendola referred to the site plan and questioned what will prevent people from parking past space #13 and blocking the lane for the drive-in at Keybank.
Mr. Young thought it was better for the area to be a connecting plaza and did not see any advantage to separating the properties.
Mr. Mendola referred to the lighting at the rear of the property and questioned if the lighting will be on the building.
Mr. Young responded that there will be no poles and any lighting will be directed toward the building.
Mr. Ciancio questioned what type of retail store will be occupying the 1000 sf space.
Mr. Young responded that Cricket phones will be locating in the building and they are very low volume.
Mrs. Salvati questioned if the restaurant will have any take-out service and noted that take-out service will change the way parking is calculated and the plan presented would not work.
Mr. Young did not believe there would be any take-out service. He noted that this building has been empty for two years and the proposed tenant has been waiting six months for this site to be approved for the restaurant. They were making a $300,000 investment in the site, so they were spending a substantial amount of money.
Paula Minklei, Orchard Park Road, did not believe the parking as delineated in the front and back of the building would work.
Mr. Young stated that the plan provided for more green space than before.
John Blando, 60 Amana Place, referred to the rear entrance and did not want to see a store front on Garden Avenue. He thought this could open it up for the other buildings along Seneca Street to have store fronts on Garden Avenue which is a residential street.
Mr. Young noted that all the other buildings along that area of Seneca Street had rear doors and the majority of the public would use the front entrance.
Karen Lucachick, Greenmeadow Drive, questioned how many parking spaces were there.
Chairman Niederpruem responded that there were 27 spaces on the site plan, 13 in the front and 14 in the rear.
Mrs. Lucachick stated that the plan was difficult to read and it should be projected on a screen for the public to view. She further noted that most Chinese restaurants have take-out service available.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Nigro, to issue a negative declaration with regard to SEQR for the proposed restaurant located at 4060 Seneca Street.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Nigro, to grant site plan approval for the site plan dated August 28, 2009 for the proposed restaurant at 4060 Seneca Street, with the stipulation that the landscaping plan being utilized along Garden Avenue also be used along Seneca Street.
On the question, Chairman Niederpruem suggested that a stipulation be added prohibiting take-out service.
Mr. Greenan did not believe that would be enforceable.
The petitioner was not present at the meeting.Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to table the above request until the October meeting.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Ciancio, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 P.M.
PATRICIA C. DEPASQUALE, RMC/CMC