Board Meeting Minutes 07/08/2010
WEST SENECA TOWN OFFICES WEST SENECA PLANNING BOARD
1250 Union Road Minutes #2010-07
West Seneca, NY 14224 July 8, 2010
Chairman Robert Niederpruem Jr. called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge to the Flag.
ROLL CALL: Present - Robert Niederpruem Jr., Chairman
Joseph Ciancio
Gerald Greenan
Donald Mendola
Anthony Nigro
Jim Rathmann
Joseph Sherman
Robert Pinnavaia, Code Enforcement Officer
Andrew Reilly & Wendy Salvati, Planning Consultants
Shawn Martin, Town Attorney
Jeffrey Harrington, Deputy Town Attorney
Absent - None
Chairman 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 Rathmann, seconded by Mendola, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Nigro, seconded by Greenan, to approve Minutes #2010-06 of June 10, 2010.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
OLD BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
SPR2010-04
A request from EdBauer Construction for site plan approval for property located at 2750 Clinton Street, for construction of office space and a small warehouse.
Eric Bauer stated that since the last Planning Board meeting he had been in contact with SHPO and UB Archaeology and looked at addressing the concerns of the Environmental Commission. The site plan was revised and some of the archaeological concerns were addressed.
Chairman Niederpruem noted that an artifacts survey was done but there was a second phase that still had to be completed.
Mr. Bauer stated that UB Archaeology was awaiting approval to go forward, but there was a problem because site access was limited due to a lot of undergrowth and small trees, so they will have a difficult time performing the Phase II archeological study. Mr. Bauer was looking to cut a small area where they will be developing the property to make it easier to do the archeological study.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati stated that she had spoken to Town Engineer George Montz about how they can gain access to the site prior to having any type of approval. Mr. Montz advised that he would allow them to put in a temporary culvert and stone to gain driveway access and do limited clearing to conduct the Phase II. Mr. Bauer stated that he was willing to do whatever was requested by the Engineering Department.
Mr. Rathmann understood that the clearing limits on the revised plan were different than what was shown on the previous plan.
Mr. Bauer stated that he was informed that the power authority has the right to clear the right-of-way that is acting as a buffer with the vegetation. He was proposing a 50’ buffer on his property in addition to the 30’ buffer space on the power authority’s property. Mr. Bauer will revise the site plan to show the new clearing limits and any other changes.
Mr. Rathmann questioned if there will be a buffer between the detention basin and the Roofer’s Union property.
Mr. Bauer responded that the proposed building was moved to 70’ as recommended by the Environmental Commission. They will not be touching any vegetation in that 70’ and all trees will remain.
Mr. Ciancio questioned if Mr. Bauer had received the NYSDEC’s approval of the culvert and the stream.
Mr. Bauer stated that he talked to the NYSDEC, Army Corps of Engineers and NYSDOT and they provisionally approved a 54” crossing for the culvert.
Mr. Mendola questioned if they also addressed cleaning out the ditch between the adjoining property and the culvert.
Mr. Bauer responded that they had not discussed anything concerning ditch cleaning, but if necessary, that could be done.
Mrs. Salvati noted that Mr. Bauer still needed water quality certification from the NYSDEC so they may address the ditch at that time. The Engineering Department will also ensure that Mr. Bauer does whatever is required to prepare the ditch and make sure they have clear flow.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that Code Enforcement Officer Robert Pinnavaia determined that based on the square footage of the building more parking is required than what is shown on the site plan.
Mr. Bauer stated that he was planning to apply for a variance for the parking to minimize the size of the asphalt parking area which was one of the concerns of the Environmental Commission. This was not a retail location and there were only six office staff with an occasional visitor, but he allowed for more parking spaces than were actually necessary for the employees and visitors.
Mrs. Salvati stated that the Environmental Commission was in favor of a variance for the parking because it will reduce the size of the paved area.
Eugene Jerge, French Road, stated that his property abuts the rear of this property and he was not opposed to Mr. Bauer building a warehouse and office, but he questioned if there will be piles of stone and topsoil on site or anything else going in on the property.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that there was about 100’ of wooded area to the rear of the property that will remain undisturbed.
Mrs. Salvati noted that there was nothing on the site plan indicating an outside storage area.
Mr. Bauer stated that they will not be storing any rock piles, millings, topsoil, etc. on the property. He noted that he lives less than a mile from this site and wanted to make sure the surrounding neighbors were happy. Mr. Bauer thought that a 100’ buffer was more than sufficient, but was willing to work with the neighbors and address their concerns.
Mr. Jerge further questioned the hours of operation and if there will be trucks backing up with alarms.
Mr. Bauer responded that it will be a daytime operation at this facility and any activity in the evening will not involve trucks or backup alarms. All the construction equipment is stored on job sites in a designated yard area. They primarily rent the equipment and in the off season it goes back to the rental company. The couple of trucks and some smaller pieces of equipment they own will be brought in and stored out of the view of the public in the off season. Mr. Bauer was open to constructing a berm or fence if necessary.
Chairman Niederpruem questioned the lighting plan.
Mr. Bauer stated that he was looking at having solar lighting on the sign in the front and that will emit low light levels. Around the building there will be motion sensor lighting. The only lights that will remain on will be one in the vestibule and one over the entrance area. They will be downward facing and offer the least amount of light possible while still maintaining visibility at the entrance area.
Mr. Greenan stated that he will be offering a resolution for a negative declaration; however, that does not mean that all the other permissions are granted. Mr. Bauer will still need a variance for the parking and other permits.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to adopt the attached resolution issuing a Negative Declaration with regard to SEQR for 2750 Clinton Street.
| Ayes: All (6) | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
*APPENDICES*
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Rathmann, to approve the site plan for 2750 Clinton Street as presented noting that all further approvals need to be received prior to the issuance of a building permit.
| Ayes: All (6) | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
SPR2010-05
A request from Nina Nadolny for site plan approval for property located at 1909 Union Road to pave existing parking lot and install catch basin and retention pond for Elle Therapeutic Massage.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that this project was previously tabled due to an issue with the former 50’ right-of-way that is now part of the property and the neighbor’s use of that right-of-way.
Nina Nadolny stated that she had provided the Planning Board members with engineering drawings with drainage calculations, drawings showing the existing buildings, signage, lighting, interior layout of the building, landscaping, title and deeds, and information on negotiations with the neighbor concerning parking. Mrs. Nadolny proposed that the neighbor continue to park his vehicle on the lot that will be paved, lined and drained. The neighbor’s tenants will be required to park on his own property rather than Mrs. Nadolny’s.
Town Attorney Shawn Martin stated that the Town Board authorized correction of the deeds and transfer of the property and that resolved the outstanding property boundaries. There were written agreements with Mrs. Nadolny’s attorney regarding working out details with the neighbor to ensure that everyone is happy.
Gerald Kliszak, Union Road, stated that he had spoken with the Nadolny’s when they closed on the property and put them on notice that he had a claim to that property. He offered to come to an amicable agreement, but Mr. Nadolny refused. The only notice he received from the Nadolny’s concerning this issue was two weeks ago and he asked that the request be tabled until they come to a resolution.
Mr. Mendola questioned which building Mr. Kliszak owned and he advised that he owned both buildings. The front building was a double and the rear building a single.
Mrs. Nadolny provided photos of a driveway apron on Union Road that provides driveway access to Mr. Kliszak’s property, but it hasn’t been used.
Chairman Niederpruem was not comfortable moving forward with site plan approval until the parking issue with the neighbor is resolved.
Mr. Rathmann stated that he visited the site this date and measured 10’ from Mr. Kliszak’s front building to the edge of the parking. Mrs. Nadolny’s drawing shows 32’ from her building to the edge of the parking, but it is actually 22’ to 23’ to the apron. To meet the requirements of the drawing, the parking would have to be moved 8’ to the north and that would not line up with the curb cut. Mr. Rathmann further stated that there were five vehicles parked in the parking lot that he understood were Mr. Kliszak’s tenants, so he will need five parking spaces.
Mrs. Salvati referred to the Town Code and stated that in any “C” district when a side yard is used for vehicular ingress or egress it shall not be less than 12’ in width, so Mr. Kliszak would need 12’ for a driveway.
Code Enforcement Officer Robert Pinnavaia stated that if they followed the Town Code Mr. Kliszak would need 25’, but this is a pre-existing condition.
Chairman Niederpruem questioned how many parking spaces were required for the three apartments and Mr. Pinnavaia advised that five spaces were required - 1.5 spaces for each front unit and two spaces for the rear unit.
Mrs. Nadolny noted that Mr. Kliszak was not using his existing driveway or property at all for parking purposes.
Mr. Kliszak stated that there is no driveway on his property.
Deputy Town Attorney Jeffery Harrington stated that Mrs. Nadolny will have to work out the issue with her neighbor prior to the Planning Board acting on the site plan.
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Mendola, to table this item until the property line is determined and parking dispute is resolved between Mrs. Nadolny and her neighbor and they both notify the town of the resolution.
On the question, Mrs. Salvati suggested that Mrs. Nadolny’s consultant confirm that the physical measurements of the site match the measurements on the drawing.
| Ayes: All (6) | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
NEW BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
SPR2010-06
A request from National Fuel for site plan approval for property located at 400 Mineral Springs Road for construction of a 7750 sf, one-story, stand alone training facility and associated site work.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that along with the application the Planning Board had received a full environmental assessment form, an aerial photo with the proposed building and parking superimposed on it, a rendering of the front of the building, and various architectural and civil sanitary drawings.
Russ Bennett, an architect with TVGA Consultants, represented National Fuel and stated their proposal to construct a new training facility on the northwest corner of the site. All the operations they plan to use the facility for are currently taking place on site in another building, so the proposed building will not present an increase in the traffic or sewer load. Landscaped screening will be provided along the adjacent residential neighborhood where there is currently an asphalt driveway and concrete retaining wall. Green space will also be added near the existing entrance and around the perimeter of the building.
Mr. Mendola questioned if the proposed landscaping along Calais Street was requested by the City of Buffalo.
Mr. Bennett stated that it was not requested by the City of Buffalo. He noted that 81 acres of the site fell within the Town of West Seneca and only .5 acres fell within the City of Buffalo, but they thought it was best to follow the Town of West Seneca’s screening requirements for the entire parcel.
Mr. Mendola questioned if the rickety fence along Mineral Springs Road will be taken down.
Mr. Bennett responded that the current plan was for it to remain as is, but they were dressing up the property with a five foot wide buffer of landscaping at the perimeter of the building on the north, west, east and a portion of the south side.
Mr. Ciancio questioned if any comments were received from the City of Buffalo.
Mr. Bennett stated that they contacted the City of Buffalo Sewer Authority regarding the sanitary and storm sewers. There will be no addition to either sewer, and the amount of impervious surface will be reduced which will help with the storm sewer.
Chairman Niederpruem questioned if there was pavement around the front of the building.
Mr. Bennett responded that there was existing pavement in the front of the building and that will remain. All required setbacks will be maintained and were indicated on the plan. A small portion of the pavement will be replaced as required to construct the building and the pavement will be striped to help with traffic circulation.
Mr. Rathmann suggested providing a normal access driveway and having green space between the street and pavement. He would like to see a 10’ strip of green space with some trees along Mineral Springs Road to make it more aesthetically appealing when entering the town.
Mr. Greenan questioned if the access to the parcel on Mineral Springs Road is gated and Mr. Bennett advised that it was currently gated and will remain that way.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati advised that she had checked the City of Buffalo zoning requirements and they require screening when parking lots adjoin residential uses. A fence or masonry wall of four feet or some type of vegetative planting is required and Mrs. Salvati suggested that Mr. Bennett look into this for the portion of the site that falls within the City of Buffalo.
Mr. Rathmann questioned the triangular piece of striped pavement along Calais Avenue and suggested eliminating that to save on the amount of paving.
Mr. Bennett stated that this was existing pavement and they were going to mill and overlay on it rather than remove it to save money.
Mr. Rathmann commented that this area needed grading anyway so he thought it would be better to reduce the amount of pavement and replace it with green space.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that this was an entrance to the town and the Planning Board wanted to see more green space, landscaping and trees in front of the building. As it was a secure facility, it also needed a chain link fence. Chairman Niederpruem referred to a water meter pit at the city line and questioned if that was the City of Buffalo’s.
Mark Messina of National Fuel Gas stated that they have a 20” medium pressure gas line that runs about 15’ from the front edge of the building. They can add some grass, but they were hoping to be able to bring cars around it and adding trees over the gas line would restrict them from doing any maintenance on the line. Mr. Messina stated that the entire 81 acres was fenced and they were regulated by federal and state government to maintain the fencing. They also prefer the least amount of ingress/egress to the property, and that is why an additional entrance was not added off Mineral Springs Road.
Mr. Rathmann suggested planting trees closer to the road, not over the gas line, and also suggested some islands with trees in the parking lot.
A resident questioned if this project will create any jobs in the area. Mr. Bennett responded that the project will create construction jobs, but upon completion employees from the other building will be moved to the new building. He suggested checking their website, noting that National Fuel Gas has an ongoing hiring policy.
Motion by Rathmann, seconded by Greenan, to table this request pending receipt of a revised site plan.
| Ayes: All (6) | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
OLD BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
2010-01
A request from Young Development Inc. for a special permit for property located at 810 Union Road, being part of Lot Nos. 329 & 330, changing its classification from R-60A to R-60A(S), for one 3-story, 128-unit senior apartment building and one 2-story, 47-unit HUD 202 apartment building.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the Planning Board had requested contour maps, site profiles, an updated Phase II delineation of archaeological sensitive areas, removal of garages, and letters on site wetlands and downstream sewer capacity and this information was received on June 24, 2010.
Attorney Ralph Lorigo, Slade Avenue, represented Young Development Inc. and stated that along with the requests of the Planning Board there were requests from the NYSDEC. They met with the NYSDEC and new issues arose that required the application to be tabled at the last meeting. The NYSDEC wanted to send their biologist to the site to ensure there are no state wetlands and check certain foliage. They also delineated some obligations with regard to sewer capacity and a number of other items. Mr. Lorigo read a letter from the NYSDEC dated June 10, 2010 stating that they determined there are currently no state wetlands on site, the proposed project footprint will only have limited impact on forest habitat, and the project will not be of significance from their perspective. The June 24, 2010 submittal delineated each of the concerns raised by the Planning Board and NYDEC.
Lowell Dewey of C & S Engineers stated that the NYSDEC sent a wildlife biologist to the site who determined that there was not 12.4 acres of wetlands on the site and they were allowed to build as shown on the site plan in proximity to the federal wetlands. This has been delineated and the Army Corps of Engineers signed off on it. Line of sight profiles were added showing a dimension from house to building. Mr. Dewey stated that the trees will not immediately block everything, but within a few years the buildings will not be visible. The archaeologist revisited the site for the next phase of study and found that everything south of the creek that connects the two wetlands areas has no significance. North of the creek was significant and they will be staying away from that. Abiding by the updated report, they were now able to put storm water detention on the site. One foot contours were incorporated over the entire site so they could do preliminary design of storm water detention and treatment. Each of the two buildings will have its own storm water detention and treatment facility. The garages to the east of the building were removed, so the people on Union Road will not see them. With respect to the downstream sewer capacity issue, the NYSDEC had asked them to look again after a certain rainfall and Town Engineer George Montz sent his crew back out after a storm and found there was more flow in the sewers but still enough capacity to handle additional flow from this project. Mr. Young agreed to abide by the NYSDEC’s regulations that when the project goes to site plan approval and permits are issued he will do a 4 to 1 ratio and improve other areas of town that have infiltration and inflow or leaky sewers.
Mr. Lorigo referred to the line of sight drawing and stated that there were 3-story buildings existing on the property and those will be removed. He noted that they were not terribly visible because of the trees and they will plant additional trees.
Mr. Nigro questioned if Mr. Young would consider reducing the 3-story building to a 2-story.
Mr. Lorigo stated that the building is for seniors and the typical person living there will be in their 70’s. They intend to have a lot of amenities and a fair market value of $850 to $950 rental per month. He stated that seniors do not want to walk long distances for the amenities or walk stairs and the 3-story building will allow them to use elevators and place the amenities in one location. Mr. Lorigo noted that the Planning Board will have full authority to make determinations such as this when they get to the site plan approval stage and everything is available for consideration.
Mr. Rathmann was concerned about the mature trees on the site and stated that the area that has the most significant 100 to 150 year old oak and beech trees is the front portion where the parking will be located along with a portion of the building.
Mr. Lorigo responded that if a tree is located in the footprint of a building it will have to be removed, but Mr. Young is in the landscape business and is very familiar with what trees will grow the fastest, provide the best shade and screening, etc. These issues can all be delineated at the site plan stage.
David Bonner, Gervan Drive, referred to the letter from Mr. Montz concerning the sewers and stated that after talking to the NYSDEC he understood that any flow study should have been done with at least ½ inch of rain or precipitation. Mr. Bonner filed a freedom of information request for SPDES reports and received reports for July 2009 through April 2010. The reports indicated that during that time frame there was 45 days that sewage, raw feces, and other matters were dumped into Cazenovia Creek, amounting to 143 million gallons, but there was ½ inch or more of precipitation on only 19 of those days. Mr. Bonner questioned the accuracy of the Engineering Department’s study and asked the Planning Board to deny this project and any future project until the town puts together a plan to fix the problems of Sewer District #13.
Mike Bukowski suggested that Mr. Young fix the sewer problem first before he builds his project.
Mr. Lorigo stated that there is a program in place and money is being spent on investigating the problem and relining the sewer lines in Sewer District #13 and other towns with older sewer systems. Mr. Montz is very cautious about these situations and has provided a letter stating that there is proper capacity for the project. The NYSDEC also has no reservations about 175 additional units and is just requiring that Mr. Young follow the 4 to 1 ratio.
Mr. Dewey stated that the Town of West Seneca is under a consent order along with the City of Buffalo and other municipalities, which means that they have to fix their sewers, and West Seneca is currently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a study. Mr. Montz found there was adequate capacity for the project and after the study is done he will chose the sites that Mr. Young will be required to repair.
Chairman Niederpruem referred to the existing buildings that will be demolished and stated that there was a plan to cut and cap the clay tile sewers that are currently tributary to the sewer on Park Lane.
Chris Pisanczyn, Union Road, stated that the site plan shows 175 apartments based on 20 acres without accounting for the tower, two existing buildings and a home. He questioned the density calculation and thought that 175 units was over the maximum allowed under the Town Code.
Mr. Greenan responded that no building permits will be issued unless they satisfy the density requirement without applying for a variance. The Code Enforcement Office calculates the density and advises the Planning Board.
Code Enforcement Officer Robert Pinnavaia stated that 175 units met the density requirement for the site and he did account for other existing structures when calculating the density.
Robert Todoroff, W. Willowdale Drive, disagreed on the density calculation and thought the other structures should be subtracted from the area of usable land.
Mr. Greenan stated that density is based on the number of dwelling units on the land. The tower is not a dwelling unit and the house and dormitory is being demolished.
A resident of the neighborhood stated that the residents are concerned about their property values and suggested that Mr. Young create a sufficient fund to compensate for the loss of property values as a result of his project. He further referred to the fact that Mr. Mendola recused himself from voting on this project because of his involvement in the fire department, and thought he should be involved in the decision because public safety is of great concern and will be impacted by the development.
Town Attorney Shawn Martin stated that Mr. Mendola’s decision to recuse himself from voting on this issue is personal to him.
Mr. Lorigo stated that he has been in front of the Planning Board with projects for 25 years and has tried to show as much respect as possible to neighbors and residents because he knows they are protecting their homes, but the respect should go both ways. Mr. Young has put forth a number of good developments in the town and that should be taken into account. He also owns the land and therefore has the right to use the land within the framework of the Town Code. Mr. Lorigo stated that he was willing to address legitimate issues but it was wrong to allow people to degrade or have personal attacks.
Lucy Murray, Orchard Park Road, stated that she has had sewer problems in her yard since buying her home in October 1993 and the recent relining of the sewer lines has not helped the situation. The pictures presented at this meeting were of her yard and she noted that there doesn’t have to be a heavy rain for the problem to occur. This issue was brought up to the town in the past and she was told that the town pays fines to allow the sewage to be pumped into the creek. Mrs. Murray suggested that the project be put on hold until the sewer situation is corrected. She noted that the sewer portion of her property tax bill is $446 and she feels she is paying for the town to dump raw sewage in her front yard. Mrs. Murray also commented on the pine trees proposed for the site and stated that since Mr. Young owned Seasonal Landscaping he should be able to provide trees for immediate screening rather than saplings that will take years to grow. She further questioned where the garages were moved to and if they will be visible to anyone from that location.
Chairman Niederpruem responded that the garages were relocated to the back of the larger building and he did not believe they would be visible to the surrounding neighbors.
Mrs. Murray commented on the impact the project will have on the environment. The loss of any mature trees was too much and the displaced wildlife had no place to go in the town.
Melissa Peters, Wimbledon Court, understood that the petitioner will be required to fix the sewers and make the situation better by building the project. She commented on other People Inc. projects in Western New York and how well maintained they were.
Mike Bukowski questioned if Mr. Young will commit to fixing the sewer problem before he proceeds with the project.
Chairman Niederpruem stated that the town has been approving projects with the 4 to 1 ration for some time. The developers bring money that helps supplement the repairs to remove inflow and infiltration from the system.
Susan Pisanczyn, Union Road, questioned if the special permit is granted if it would be possible for Mr. Young to use the entire 40 acre site and the density calculations to develop more than the 175 proposed apartments. Chairman Niederpruem responded that it would not. Mrs. Pisanczyn questioned if Mr. Young could get a variance to change the density requirements to build more apartments. Chairman Niederpruem stated that Mr. Young would have to go through the same process they are going through now. Mrs. Pisanczyn questioned if it was possible that the apartments will have other people living in them besides seniors. Chairman Niederpruem thought that the answer was no since this is a senior housing project.
Mr. Martin advised that restrictions can be placed on the special permit to take all these concerns into consideration.
Lucy Murray questioned if the Planning Board will place restrictions and Chairman Niederpruem responded that it would be up to all the board members.
Jim Wiktorski, Indian Church Road, commented that the residents that have existing sewer problems already had decreased property values, so they should be more concerned about that than about a new development going in. Mr. Wiktorski further commented that if the project is not approved in West Seneca, another town will welcome it to their community.
Amy Carpenter, Woodward Crescent, questioned what the “A” stood for after the R-60 zoning.
Mr. Pinnavaia advised that the R-60A zoning allowed for multi-family dwellings, professional office buildings, light commercial uses, etc.
Mrs. Carpenter stated that she has been attending town meetings for over 8 years and the sewer problem has progressively gotten worse even with the relining project and use of the 4 to 1 ratio, so she did not believe the proposed project would help the situation.
Planning Consultant Andrew Reilly stated that sewer issues are a problem throughout Western New York and there is a sewer moratorium in the area. The NYSDEC has stated that they will not allow this project to proceed unless they meet the requirements. The town must complete the study by the end of the year, identify the areas that need fixing, and then the 4 to 1 mitigation will be done and the NYSDEC
will have to approve it. It will not fix the problem totally, but it will make it less. With regard to the age of the residents that live in the apartments, Mr. Reilly advised that this was not relevant but it can be made a condition of the special permit. They can also place a condition that no additional units will be added in the future and even create a conservation easement on the property.
Planning Consultant Wendy Salvati stated that when the Town Board approved the special permit for Mr. Young’s development, Katie’s Place, they set a limit on the number of units he could have. He received a variance to allow the density to be increased, but the town kept the density through the special permit.
Chairman Niederpruem recited the description of the action and a list of reasons supporting a Negative Declaration (see attached).
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Ciancio, to adopt the following resolution issuing a Negative Declaration with regard to SEQR on the Southgate Commons Senior Community project located at 810 Union Road:
WHEREAS, the Town of West Seneca received a request for a special use permit to construct a 128-unit, three-story senior apartment building and a 47-unit independent living facility for seniors, to be operated by People, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board established itself Lead Agency on April 8, 2010 and conducted a SEQR Coordinated Review of the proposed action; and
WHEREAS, The Town of West Seneca Planning Board, in compliance with Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act – SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law, has reviewed this action in conjunction with all supporting documentation and agency comments; and
WHEREAS, based upon this review, it has been determined that this project will not adversely affect the natural resources of the state and/or the health, safety and welfare of the public and is consistent with social and economic considerations; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town of West Seneca Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is not anticipated to result in any significant negative impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration, as attached, is hereby issued; and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board Chairman is authorized to sign the environmental assessment form and the Town Planner is authorized to undertake appropriate mailings and notifications.
On the question, Mr. Nigro objected to including the number of units in the motion.
Mr. Reilly explained that the SEQR analysis had to be done on what was proposed.
Ayes: (3) Mr. Greenan, Mr. Ciancio, Chairman Niederpruem
Noes: (3) Mr. Rathmann, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Nigro Abstentions: (1) Mr. Mendola
Motion denied
Mr. Reilly advised that if the Planning Board could not come to a resolution on the Negative Declaration, someone will have to motion for a Positive Declaration and articulate what the issues are.
Motion by Rathmann, seconded by Sherman, to adopt the following resolution issuing a Positive Declaration with regard to SEQR on the Southgate Commons Senior Community project located at 810 Union Road:
WHEREAS, the Town of West Seneca received a request for a special use permit to construct a 128-unit, three-story senior apartment building and a 47-unit independent living facility for seniors, to be operated by People, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board established itself Lead Agency on April 8, 2010 and conducted a SEQR Coordinated Review of the proposed action; and
WHEREAS, The Town of West Seneca Planning Board, in compliance with Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act – SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law, has reviewed this action in conjunction with all supporting documentation and agency comments; and
WHEREAS, based upon this review, it has been determined that this project will adversely affect the natural resources of the state and/or the health, safety and welfare of the public and is inconsistent with social and economic considerations, with specific concerns as follows:
1) removal of significant forested area, noting that most of the building and parking area will impact trees that appear to be 100 to 150 years old yet are still in good condition;
2) submitted information is not adequate to show the visual impact of a 3-story building on the surrounding neighborhood;
3) the potential for traffic issues entering and exiting the facility
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town of West Seneca Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is anticipated to result in a significant positive impact on the environment and that a Positive Declaration is hereby issued.
On the question, Mr. Sherman expressed his concerns over the traffic in and out of the facility and its impact on public safety, the impact on police and fire personnel, preservation of the larger trees on the site, and sewer issues.
Mrs. Salvati stated that the Planning Board will have to continue deliberating until they achieve a majority vote either way.
Mr. Nigro stated that his objection to the Negative Declaration had to do with the number of units being specific in the motion.
Ayes: (2) Mr. Rathmann, Mr. Sherman
Noes: (4) Mr. Greenan, Mr. Ciancio, Mr. Nigro, Chairman Niederpruem
Abstentions: (1) Mr. Mendola Motion denied
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Nigro, to adopt the following resolution issuing a Negative Declaration with regard to SEQR on the Southgate Commons Senior Community project located at 810 Union Road:
WHEREAS, the Town of West Seneca received a request for a special use permit to construct up to a 128-unit, three-story senior apartment building and up to a 47-unit independent living facility for seniors, to be operated by People, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board established itself Lead Agency on April 8, 2010 and conducted a SEQR Coordinated Review of the proposed action; and
WHEREAS, The Town of West Seneca Planning Board, in compliance with Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act – SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law, has reviewed this action in conjunction with all supporting documentation and agency comments; and
WHEREAS, based upon this review, it has been determined that this project will not adversely affect the natural resources of the state and/or the health, safety and welfare of the public and is consistent with social and economic considerations; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town of West Seneca Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is not anticipated to result in any significant negative impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration, as attached, is hereby issued; and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board Chairman is authorized to sign the environmental assessment form and the Town Planner is authorized to undertake appropriate mailings and notifications.
Ayes: (4) Mr. Greenan, Mr. Nigro, Mr. Ciancio, Chairman Niederpruem
Noes: (2) Mr. Rathmann, Mr. Sherman Motion Carried
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Nigro, to recommend approval of the request for a special permit for property located at 810 Union Road, being part of Lot Nos. 329 & 330, changing its classification from R-60A to R-60A(S), for up to one 3-story, 128-unit senior apartment building and up to one 2-story, 47-unit HUD 202 apartment building.
On the question,
Motion by Niederpruem, seconded by Greenan, to amend the motion and recommend approval of the request for a special permit for property located at 810 Union Road, being part of Lot Nos. 329 & 330, changing its classification from R-60A to R-60A(S), for up to one 3-story, 128-unit senior apartment building and up to one 2-story, 47-unit HUD 202 apartment building, with the following stipulations:
- Protection of areas from disturbance during construction
- Phase I development area can only be disturbed during Phase I
- Construction fencing controlling the area is not to be disturbed
- Protection of green spaces from future development
- conservation easements
- forever wild areas
- dedication of lands
- deed restrictions
- preservation of significant trees
- Protection of areas identified in the Phase II archaeological report
- Condition the project to seniors only, not open for general market rentals without returning to the Town Board for a special permit
- Approval of a stormwater protection permit and extra precautions concerning erosion and sediment control and stormwater management systems
- Building construction types
- architectural review
- limitation on height
- Traffic improvements/site entrance improvements
- Limits on hours for construction activity
- Noise dampening equipment on the HVAC and any generators on site
- No further development on the site or limit to specified areas
- Sewer mitigation project that is underway be completed
On the question, Mr. Rathmann questioned if they could add a stipulation that no school age children are permitted to reside at the facility.
Mr. Reilly thought that this was covered under the condition that the project is for seniors only.
On the amended motion,
Ayes: (5)* Chairman Niederpruem, Mr. Greenan, * Mr. Nigro, Mr. Rathmann, Mr. Sherman
Noes: (1) Mr. Ciancio* Abstentions: (1) Mr. Mendola Motion Carried
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Greenan, seconded by Rathmann, to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 P.M.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
PATRICIA C. DEPASQUALE, RMC/CMC
SECRETARY
* corrected at 08/12/2010 Planning Board Meeting