7: l~cms5.revize.com/revize/grandislandny/SEQRA Findings Statement August 25... · background of...

'

~cr-r:\ !ED \ .. -- , ..... '

~ 8 P'\ \7: 2 l~ 91 ~[P I FINDINGS STATEMENT PURSUANT TO THE STATE

..-:-, , 1;)' G~~.RONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT BY THE ~1~~''1\• ·i1~~BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND

GP, ·-,hL: ,v ••FOR THE PROPOSED ADULT LIFESTYLE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT SOUTHPOINTE

I. Introduction

This Findings Statement is issued by the Town Board of the Town of Grand Island, as Lead Agency, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), Article 8 of the N.Y. Environmental Conservation Law, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (6 NYCRR Part 617), in connection with the requested rezoning of the 283.9 acre property owned by the Applicant (the "Site'') from Residential R- lA and R- lB to a Planned Unit Development and the creation of a new Town of Grand Island Sewer District No. 7 for the proposed Adult Lifestyle Planned Unit Development at Southpointe. Part I of this Findings Statement sets forth a summary of the proposed action, its purpose and need, its location and agency jurisdiction. Part II provides the procedural background of the proposed action. Part III provides a statement of facts and conclusions relied upon to support the Findings. The ultimate Findings are set forth in Part IV.

Name of Action:

Location:

Tax Map Designation:

Purpose and Need:

Changing the District Classification of and Zoning Map for the Site from Residential R-lA and R-lB to Planned Unit Development and creation of a new Town Sewer District No. 7 for the Site to accommodate the proposed mixed residential-commercial project called the Adult Lifestyle Planned Unit Development at Southpointe, which would contain 431 units of various types of adult lifestyle housing, 209 units of unrestricted market rate housing and 255,000 square feet of commercial, retail, office and community facilities.

The Site is a 283.9 acre tract owned by the Applicant and located in the Town of Grand Island between Love Road, Baseline Road, Staley Road and South Parkway.

Section 51, Block 1, Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the Tax Map of the Town of Grand Island.

The proposed action would rezone the Site to a PUD and create a new sewer district

GI - Southpointe - TC - 763

T'

Agency Jurisdiction:

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

to facilitate the proposed Adult Lifestyle Planned Unit Development at Southpointe.

Town Board of the Town of Grand Island

WHEREAS, Frontier Developments Partnership (the "Applicant") filed with the Town Board of the Town of Grand Island ("Town Board") on April 11, 1991 an application to amend the Zoning Code of the Tow~ of Grand Island (the "Zoning Code") by changing the District Classification of and Zoning Map for the Site from Residential R-lA to Planned Unit Development ("PUD") and to create a new Sewer District No. 7 for the Site to facilitate the development of the Site for 370 single family residences and approximately 1,150,000 square feet of mixed commercial and retail space; and

WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Form, dated April 11, 1991, was submitted in connection with said application; and

WHEREAS, on May 2, 1991 the Town Board issued a Notice of Intent to serve as the Lead Agency and a Notice of Intent to Issue a Positive Declaration, and circulated such Notices to all identified involved and interested agencies in accordance with the provisions of SEQRA; and

WHEREAS, with no written objections received after thirty days of the circulation of said Notice of Intent to serve as the Lead Agency, and with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") agreeing to such lead agency status with certain conditions, the Town Board designated itself as Lead Agency in accordance with the provisions of SEQRA; and

WHEREAS, on February 13, 1992, the Town Board, acting as Lead Agency, adopted a resolution determining that the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment and issued a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance in accordance with the provisions of SEQRA, requiring the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"); and

WHEREAS, the Town Board set March 13, 1992 for a public scoping session and notified involved and interested agencies and the public of its Positive Declaration and date for the public scoping session to receive comment on the issues to be addressed in the DEIS; and

WHEREAS, on March 13, 1992, the Town Board conducted a Scoping Session at the Town Hall at which all interested persons anci involved and interested agencies were afforded an opportunity to

2


present their comments on the issues to be addressed in the DEIS; and

WHEREAS, the Scoping Session identified the following major issues for inclusion in the DEIS: land use and zoning, including consistency with the Town of Grand Island Comprehensive Plan; neighborhood character, surface water resources; sewer capacity; traffic; air quality; noise; wetlands; aesthetics; school and community resources; and fiscal impacts; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant was directed to submit a DEIS. in accordance with the Scoping Session; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant, on August 27, 1992, submitted a revised application to change the District classification of and Zoning Map for the Site from R-lA to a mixture of R-lB and R-3 and Business Bl and B-2 to facilitate the development of the Site for 370 single family residences and approximately 1,150,000 square feet of mixed commercial and retail; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a preliminary Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("PDGEIS") and DEIS (collectively, "PDGEIS/PDEIS") to the Town Board on August 27, 1992; and

WHEREAS, the PDGEIS/PDEIS was circulated to involved and interested agencies for review on August 31, 1992; and

WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 26, 1992, the Town Board commented on the PDGEIS/PDEIS and advised the Applicant that the impact statement was incomplete; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board, by letter to the Applicant dated December 1, 1992, commented on the PDGEIS/PDEIS and advised the Applicant that the impact statement was not complete in terms of its scope, contents and adequacy; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant filed with the Town Board on July 17, 1995 a new application to amend the Zoning Code by changing the District Classification of and Zoning Map for the Site from Residential R-lA to PUD and to create a new Town Sewer District No. 7 for the Site to facilitate the development of a revised mixed-use project called the Adult Lifestyle Planned Unit Development at Southpointe, to consist of 411 units of various types of adult lifestyle housing, 209 units of unrestricted single family housing and approximately 255,000 square feet of mixed commercial, retail and office uses and community facilities; and

3


r ( !

WHEREAS, the Applicant filed with the Town Board on July 20, 1995 a preliminary DEIS ("PDEIS") in support of the new proposed action, including the rezoning of the Site and the creation of a new sewer district to facilitate the proposed Adult Lifestyle Planned Unit Development at Southpointe; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board on July 24, 1995, circulated the PDEIS to involved and interested agencies; and

WHEREAS, the time for the Town Board to review the PDEIS was extended, with the concurrence of the Applicant, to November 27, 1995; and

WHEREAS, in order to assist it in technical matters and to ensure a thorough review of relevant areas of environmental concern, the Town Board, on October 2, 1993, engaged the services of qualified and independent consultants, URS Greiner, Inc., TVGA, Inc., Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. and Si ve, Paget & Riesel, P. C. (collectively, the "Consultants"); and

WHEREAS, by letter to the Applicant dated November 27, 1995, the Town Board, with input from its Consultants and from involved and interested agencies, commented on the PDEIS and advised the Applicant that the impact statement was not complete in terms of its scope, contents and adequacy; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant, by letter to Supervisor Pax and Town Counsel Wiles dated December 18, 1995, sought ,to respond to the Town Board's November 27, 1995 comments on the PDEIS and requested certain clarification thereof; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board, by letter to the Applicant's counsel dated January 26, 1996, responded to the Applicant's December 17, 1995 letter; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant, by letter to Town Counsel dated March 12, 1996 submitted responses to certain of the comments of the Town Board on the PDEIS contained in the Board's November 27, 1995 and January 26, 1996 letters; and

WHEREAS, during the ensuing several months there were discussions and exchanges of information between the Town Board, through its counsel and/or Consultants, and the Applicant (through its counsel and/or consultants) with regard to the contents of the PDEIS; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Town Board on August 5, 1996 a revised PDEIS that sought to address the Town Board's comments; and

WHEREAS, the revised PDEIS was circulated to involved and interested agencies for review and comment; and

4


WHEREAS, the Town Board, by letter to the Applicant dated November 4, 1996, commented on the revised PDEIS and advised the Applicant that certain modifications to the document were necessary; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Town Board on November 27 and December 3, 1996 proposed revisions to the PDEIS; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board reviewed the Applicant's November 27 and December 3, 1996 submissions of a revised PDEIS; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board, by resolution dated January 6, 1997, directed the Applicant to make certain revisions to the PDEIS; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Town Board on January 20, 1997, a revised PDEIS which contained revisions requested by the Town Board's January 6, 1997 resolution; and

WHEREAS, at its January 21, 1997 meeting, the Town Board directed the Applicant to make certain additional revisions to the latest revised PDEIS submitted by the Applicant, with which the Applicant concurred; and

WHEREAS, at its January 21, 1997 meeting, the Town Board, after review of the revised DEIS, determined that the document addressed the issues identified at the Scoping Session and the Board's comments on the PDEIS and accepted the DEIS as complete in terms of its scope, contents and adequacy for circulation to involved and interested agencies and the public pursuant to SEQRA, and issued a Notice of Completion; and

WHEREAS, at its January 21, 1997 meeting, the Town Board set February 24 and March 5, 1997, for a public hearing on the DEIS, to be coordinated with a public hearing on the Applicant's requests to rezone the Site and create a new sewer district, and provided until March 14, 1997 for the receipt of written comments on the DEIS; and

WHEREAS, at its January 21, 1997 meeting, the Town Board set February 24 and March 5, 1997, for a public hearing on the Applicant's application to amend the Zoning Code by changing the District Classification of and Zoning Map for the Site from Residential R-lA to PUD; and

WHEREAS, at its January 21, 1997 meeting, the Town Board set February 24 and March 5, 1997, for a public hearing on the Applicant's application to create a new Town Sewer District No. 7 for the Site; and

WHEREAS, the DEIS was circulated to all involved and interested agencies along with a Notice of Completion, and was made available to the public; and

5


' r

WHEREAS, on February 24, 1997 the Town Board held the initial session of a public hearing on the DEIS, the Applicant's requests to rezone the Site and to create a new sewer district at the Grand Island High School, at which oral and written comments were received; and

WHEREAS, on March 5, 1997 the Town Board held a continued public hearing on the DEIS, the Applicant's requests to rezone the Site and to create a new sewer district at the Kaegebein Elementary School, at which oral and written comments were received; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board closed the public hearing on March 5, 1997; and

WHEREAS, the public comment period on the DEIS expired on March 14, 1997; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board received and considered both written and oral comments on the DEIS; and

WHEREAS, after the expiration of the comment period, the Town Board directed the Applicant to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS") that would include, inter alia, responses to comments on the DEIS; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant commenced preparation of a preliminary FEIS ("PFEIS") in early April 1997; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant, commencing by letters dated April 11, 1997 and continuing through April 25, 1997, submitted to the Town Board its PFEIS; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board, finding that the PFEIS prepared by the Applicant was not satisfactory, determined that it would prepare the FEIS and, by resolution dated May 5, 1997, directed URS Greiner, Inc. to undertake such task; and

WHEREAS, by letter dated May 23, 1997, the Town Board notified the Applicant that it was extending the time for preparation of the FEIS beyond the time period set forth in 6 NYCRR § 617.S(e); and

WHEREAS, by letters dated May 27, 1997, the Town Board notified involved agencies that it was extending the time for preparation of the FEIS beyond the time period set forth in 6 NYCRR § 61 7. 8 (e) i. and

WHEREAS, URS Greiner, Inc. prepared and submitted a PFEIS to the Town Board and the Applicant on June 25, 1997; and

WHEREAS, at the Town Board work session on June 26, 1997, the Applicant requested the inclusion in the FEIS of a new alternative to the proposed action; and

6


I f

WHEREAS, the Applicant, by letter dated July 3, 1997, provided to the Town Board comments on the PFEIS and a description of the new alternative to the proposed action to be included in the FEIS; and

WHEREAS, URS Greiner, Inc. submitted a revised PFEIS to the Town Board on July 18, 1997; and

WHEREAS, at its July 21, 1997 meeting, the Town Board considered the revised PFEIS, directed that certain revisions be made to it and, with such revisions, accepted the revised PFEIS as a FEIS satisfactory with respect to its scope, contents and adequacy; and

WHEREAS, at its July 21, 1997 meeting, the Town Board issued a Notice of Completion for the FEIS, which provided for the acceptance of written comments on the FEIS until August 11, 1997; and

WHEREAS, by letter dated July 23, 1997, the Town requested comments of the Erie County Di vision of Planning pursuant to General Municipal Law ("GML") § 239-1 and m on the Applicant's application to rezone the Site; and

WHEREAS, on July 30, 1997, the FEIS was filed with the Town Board and was circulated to all involved and interested agencies; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board received comments on the FEIS from involved agencies and the public, as well as the Applicant; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Grand Island Planning Board, by Memorandum dated August 11, 1997 relating to the proposed rezoning, stated, inter alia, that the proposed action was "in direct conflict" with the Town of Grand Island Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the County of Erie Division of Planning, by letter dated August 22, 1997 relating to the proposed rezoning, stated, inter alia, that "the proposed project is not consistent with some elements of [the Town Master] Plan ... " ; and

WHEREAS, Special Counsel for the Town, by Memorandum dated September 12, 1997, addressed the Applicant's comments in the FEIS; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered comments on the FEIS that were received, including those submitted by the Applicant; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board, in its review of the proposed action, has undertaken a hard look at the environmental effects disclosed in the FEIS (which incorporates the DEIS) and considered relevant social, economic and other factors; and

WHEREAS, all Town Board proceedings required pursuant to SEQRA and local law have been completed.

7


I I

III. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND FINDS AND CONCLUDES THAT:

A. The Site

The Site is a 283.9 acre tract of land located between Love Road, Baseline Road, Staley Road and South Parkway. The New York State Thruway (I-190) borders the Site on the southeast. The Site was purchased by the Applicant in January 1991.

The Site is undeveloped. Much of the property is characterized by large contiguous areas of woodlands, shrub/scrub and old fields. Approximately 69. 9 acres of the Site are mapped as New York State freshwater wetlands and/or designated as federal wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Spicer Creek, which flows in a northeasterly direction, bisects the eastern portion of the Site. Pipeline easements for crude oil and natural gas traverse the mid-section of the Site from east to west.

Land uses in the general vicinity of the Site are varied. They include single family residences, duplex housing, an elementary school and some small businesses. The Carl Road duplexes border the Site to the south. There are limited commercial uses along Grand Island Boulevard, which generally provide retail services. Residential uses in the vicinity of the Site range from .15 dwelling units per acre ( "du/ac") to 6 .14 du/ac in the Carl Road development. Lower residential densities are generally found north and west of the Site, while higher densities, usually from older developments, are found south and east of the property.

All but approximately an acre of the 284 acre Site is zoned Residential R-lA. This classification allows single family residential dwellings on 30,000 square foot lot with public water but no sewers; if there is public water and sewers the classification allows single family residential dwellings on 20,000 square foot lots. The Site has been zoned R-lA since 1971. The RlB classification allows single family residential dwellings on 30,000 square foot lots without sewers and such houses on 12,800 square foot lots with sewers.

The Site is not in a Town Sewer District and is not sewered. The Town has a sewer treatment plant ("STP") which serves portions of the municipality -- generally the northern and southern-mos~ parts of the Town. Most of the Town south and west of the Thruway (I-190) and South Parkway is not sewered.

The Town has a Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in August 1994. The Plan recommends low density residential use of the Site. The previous Plan, adopted in 1969, also recommended residential

8


l

use of the Site. unsewered.

The 1994 Plan recommends that the Site remain

B. The Proposed Action

The Applicant has requested that (1) the entire Site be rezoned from Residential to PUD and (2) a new Town Sewer District No. 7 be created for the Site. The purpose of these applications is to allow and facilitate the proposed mixed use development of the Site the Adult Lifestyle Planned Unit Development at Southpointe (the "Southpointe PUD").

The adult lifestyle portion of the development would be intended to serve retirement-age adults over 55 years of age.

This proposed development would include 431 units of various types of adult lifestyle housing, 209 unrestricted, market-rate single family residential units, and 255,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office development. The Southpointe PUD design provides for adult lifestyle units to be located on approximately 120 acres in the northern half of the Site, with the market-rate units to be situated on the southwestern and eastern parts of the property. Approximately 63 acres of State and/or federally regulated wetlands on the west, the northeast and paralleling Spicer Creek would remain undeveloped and preserved (and possibly dedicated to a conservancy organization).

Access to the Site would be from Staley Road on the north, Baseline Road on the west, Love Road on the south, and South Parkway. Primary access to the adult lifestyle portion of the proposed Southpointe PUD would be via Southpointe Boulevard, a newly constructed divided roadway that would connect South Parkway to Baseline Road. Access to the principal commercial portion of the development, near the Thruway, woul~ be from South Parkway ort the southeast.

The adult lifestyle units would include patio homes, individual residences, villas, apartments and assisted living units, which would range in size from 550 to 1,950 square feet. The market-rate single family residential housing would include patio homes, individual residences, estate residences and apartments. The projected population would total 1276 persons: 712 residents of the adult lifestyle housing and 564 residents of the single family residential housing.

The commercial components of the proposed Southpointe PUD would be in two locations. There would be a large component in the southeastern portion of the Site, near the Thruway. This area would include approximately 202,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office uses (such as professional offices, small retail uses, restaurants and delicatessens), including a grocery store to serve as 'an "anchor" store and a skating rink. There would be Main

9


' '

Street Mixed Use area, adjacent to a 15,000 square foot community center, with approximately 38,000 square feet of professional office and retail services in the adult lifestyle area of the Site.

The proposed Southpointe PUD would use public water. With the creation of a new sewer district, gravity sanitary sewers and a satellite pump station would convey on-site sewage to a new master pump station on the Site. From there, sewage would be pumped through a new force main, under I-190 and along Staley Road to an existing Town force main. The sewage would enter a Town gravity sewer at Whitehaven Road and ultimately flow to the Town's STP.

Stormwater from the proposed development would be collected and conveyed to, and then detained in, one of the eight stormwater management ponds for detention and the removal of suspended solids and certain contaminants typically found in urban runoff. The facilities would be designed to accommodate and regulate increased runoff generated by a 25-year rainfall event.

i

On-site recreational facilities, both active and passive, are proposed. These would include bicycle and walking trails thai would connect to the Town Recreation system, picnic areas and open lawn areas. The proposed PUD would include substantial open areas, much of which would be comprised of state and/or federally regulated wetlands. The proposed development plan would provide for 9.6 acres of open space, 18.36 acres of buffer, 2.3 acres of parks and 63. 35 acres of preserved wetlands. A homeowners association would be formed to maintain the common areas and the community center.

Homeowner association by-laws would seek to restrict the adult lifestyle housing to adults over 55 years of age. Pursuant to the federal Fair Housing Act, as amended, residential developments may operate as senior citizen communities provided that at least 80 percent of the units are occupied by at least one person over 55 years of age. The Applicant believes that the design of the adult lifestyle portion of the proposed project, together with the amenities and services offered, would attract retired adults.

The proposed Southpointe PUD would be constructed in three phases. Phase I, originally scheduled to be completed in 1997, would include 94 units of adult lifestyle housing, half of the community center, 20 unrestricted single family residential dwellings, 109,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office uses, the entirety of Southpointe Boulevard and approximately 60 percent of the bicycle trails. Phase II would include 95 adult lifestyle units, the remainder of the community center, 46 single family dwelling, 103,000 square feet of commercial, retail, office and community facilities, the remainder of the bicycle trails, approximately 60 percent of the walking trails, and a 0.7 acre community park near to Water Town Park. Phase III would include

10


l t

the remaining 28,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office uses, 1.6 acres of parks and completion of the walking trails.

C. Purpose And Need

The Applicant's stated purpose, beyond the realization of an investment opportunity, is the development of a mixed-use project comprised of three principal elements: adult lifestyle housing for retired adults with 38,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office facilities and a community center to serve this community; single family market-rate housing; and a substantial commercial component of approximately 202,000 square feet, anchored by a grocery store, that would service a market area well beyond residents.of the proposed project.

The Applicant has posited a need for adult lifestyle housing with concomitant services, both in the region and nationwide, based on demographic information, market analysis and community outreach programs. The thrust of the Applicant's assessment is that there is a national trend of an increasingly elderly population, due primarily to the aging of the baby boomers and an increase in life expectancy for adults over 65 years of age. A market study commissioned by the Applicant indicates that Grand Island could support a successful development for adults due to its location between two major cities, a major market draw area and the absence of adult lifestyle communitie~ in the region.

The Applicant's study also assessed demand for market-rate housing, and found sufficient demand in the region to support a substantial development at the Site. The study concluded that the optimum mix of housing would be 364 age-restricted units and 265 market-rate single family residential units.

The Applicant-commissioned market analysis also included a summary of a shopping center feasibility report. This summary concluded that a study of demographics of Grand Island and the shopping habits of Island residents indicated substantial off.,. Island expenditures that could be captured by the shopping center proposed to be located near the Thruway. The summary noted that the approximately 700 camping sites on Grand Island would provide additional support for grocery and retail sales. Although supporting data was included, the summary did not provide extensive explanations for its conclusions and did not compare the off-Island expenditures of Town residents with the expected sales of the proposed shopping center.

In addition, the proposed Southpointe PUD would provide recreation and open space that would be consistent with the Town's Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan.

11


D. Land Use, Zoning And Comprehensive Planning

1. Zoning

At the time the Applicant acquired the Site in January 1991, the Site was zoned as it is today - Residential R-lA (except for an acre zoned as R-lB). This zoning was adopted in 1971, as part of a Town-wide zoning adopted to implement the Town's 1969 Comprehensive Plan.

The principal uses permitted in R-lA and R-lB districts include single family detached units, public parks and playgrounds. In both districts, the minimum size for lots served by public water but without sewers (like the Site) is 30,000 square feet. In R-lA districts, lots must be at least 120 feet wide and 250 feet long. If sewers are available, the minimum lot size drops to 20,000 square feet in R-lA district and 12,800 in R-lB districts. In R-lA districts, the minimum dimensions drop to 100 feet in width and 200 feet in depth.

For purposes of . the EIS, the Applicant calculated maximum allowable density on the Site assuming the availability of sewers. It subtracted 66 acres of wetlands and a certain acreage for roads from the overall Site acreage (284 acres) to obtain a buildable area in acres; that figure was then divided by the 20,00 square foot minimum lot size to obtain a number of lots. Using this methodology, for the R-lA zoning which governs virtually all of the Site, the Site could accommodate 419 dwelling units if roads were private, yielding a density of 2.178 du/ac. Without sewers, under the same methodology, the Site could accommodate 279 lots with a resulting density of 1.451 du/ac. As noted in the EIS, this approach is not endorsed by the Town; the Town Board believes that this methodology yields a greater density then would be approved. Moreover, the ultimate number of units allowed would only be finally determined after site plan review by the Town Planning Board. However, this approach was appropriately used to provide a conservative assessment of environmental impacts for the EIS.

The proposed action would necessitate a change in the zoning classification of the Site from R-lA to PUD. Pursuant to the Zoning Code, the purpose of a PUD is:

to encourage flexibility in the design and development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets, utilities and public spaces; and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open area. The procedure is intended to permit diversification in the location of structures and improve circulation facilities and other site qualities while ensuring adequate standards relating to public health, safety and welfare and convenience both in the use and occupancy of buildings and facilities in

12


planned groups.

Zoning Code§ 49-24.A.

A PUD site must be at least 100 acres in size, preserve at least 25 percent of the site as open space and devote at least ten percent of the site to free public recreation. Residential densities can be no greater than those permitted in residential districts on the Zoning Map. Land use shall not adversely affect surrounding development "and shall be in accordance with the objectives and principles of the general plan." Zoning Code§ 49-24.C.

The Zoning Code also establishes a series of General Standards that must be satisfied before the Planning Board can approve a PUD. These include the General Standard that a PUD must "be consistent with the Grand Island Comprehensive Plan." Zoning Code § 49-24 .D (1).

2. Consistency With Zoning Code

The proposed Southpointe PUD complies with certain of the standards and requirements of the Zoning Code noted above, but contravenes others.

Section 49-24.C(3) of the Zoning Code prohibits a PUD with a density greater than that allowed in the residential districts on the Zoning Map. The Town Board construes this provision to impose the underlying residential classification on the PUD zoning: i.e.~ for the Site, the density of the proposed PUD could not exceed that density allowed by the R-lA zoning of the Site (and the R-lB zoning for one acre of the Site) . Under the Applicant's methodology described above, this density, assuming sewers (as sought by the Applicant) is 2.178 du/ac for the R-lA district (and 3.4 du/ac for the acre zoned R-lB).

The density of the proposed PUD was calculated in the EIS to be 3.5 dwelling units an acre. The methodology used to calculate density excluded 66 acres of regulated wetlands and 35 acres planned for commercial, retail, office and community facilities development from the overall Site size of 284 acres, and then divided the remaining 183 acres by the number of planned units (640). The Town calculates density in a PUD in a different manner, which yields fewer lots and thus lesser density. Using the densities calculated for the EIS, the density for the residential portion of the proposed PUD would exceed that permitted by the underlying zoning, thus prohibiting the rezoning sought by the Applicant. ,

The Applicant disagrees with the Town Board's interpretation of this provision of the Zoning Code. It believes that the maximum density of a PUD is the maximum density permitted by any

13


residential zoning district in the Town. For example, the R-3 Multifamily district would allow a density of 12.5 du/ac for the Site (under the same method of calculating density). Thus, under the Applicant's interpretation of Section 49-24.C(3), the residential portion of the proposed PUD would satisfy this criterion of the Zoning Code.

The Town Board reject's the Applicant's proffered interpretation for a number of reasons, including those articulated herein. The language of Section 49-24.C(3) refers to "residential district.§. as shown on the Zoning Map." (Emphasis supplied.) The Code would not refer to multiple districts if it was intended that the density of a residential PUD was based on the density of a single district in the Zoning Code which would allow the maximum density. Rather, the Code would simply specify that the maximum density was that allowed by any residential district shown on the Zoning Map.

In addition, the purpose of a PUD is to promote flexibility in the design and development of a large site; it is not to allow an increase in permissible density in excess of the underlying zoning. Yet that would be the consequence of adopting Applicant's interpretation of the provision.

Further, the Town previously interpreted this provision to refer to the underlying zoning, rather than to any residential district on the Zoning Map, when it approved the River Oaks PUD in 1971.

Section 49-24.C(2) of the Zoning Code requires that at least 25 percent of the Site (71 acres) be developed as open space and a minimum of 10 percent (28.4) be devoted to free public recreation. The proposed PUD would set aside approximately 63 .c35 acres of State and/or federally regulated wetlands and 18.36 acres of buffer area (regulated as adjacent areas to State wetlands). There would be 2. 3 O acres of public parks, 9. 64 acres of other open space, approximately 2.75 acres of utility easement and bicycle/walking trails outside wetlands, and a total of 14,500 linear feet of such trails. The total acreage of open space and recreational amenities is 96.8 acres, which is 34 percent of the overall Site acreage.

The proposed Southpointe PUD, based on this design, woulc:l satisfy the 25 percent criterion, as the overall open space exceeds 71 acres. It is not clear, however, that the proposed PUD would satisfy the 10 percent free public recreation criterion. There is 2.3 acres of park, 2.75 acres of utility corridor bicycle/walking trails and some additional trails in the regulated wetlands. There is also an additional 18.36 acres of buffers along State-regulated wetlands which, according to the DEIS, "permit enhancement activities such as trails and wetland interpretive areas." (DEIS at 2-10.) In addition, the DEIS states that major wetland areas on the Site "provid[e] significant passive recreation and wildlife

14


habitat." (DEIS at 2-11.)

The DEIS goes on, however, to identify the recreational facilities, and does not include the major wetlands in such listing; the listing only refers trails along wetlands and wetland interpretive areas. (DEIS at 2-11.) The Applicant has not specified whether the major Site wetlands or buffer areas would be open to the public beyond the provision therein of bicycle or walking trails. The provision of such trails does not appear to make the entire wetland acreage available to the public for recreation. Furthermore, the Applicant has not shown that the wetlands are conducive to or appropriate for passive recreation or that such use would be compatible with the various values of such areas, such as for wildlife habitat. If the proposed ice skating rink is planned to be free, this would be included in the calculation of acreage to be dedicated to free recreation.

The DEIS (at 4-40) indicates that the proposed PUD would provide approximately 30.8 acres of free public recreation. However, the basis for that conclusion is not specified, and simply references Section 2. The discussion in Section 2, as noted above~ does not establish that the 10 percent criterion has been satisfied.

Overall, therefore, it is not clear that the Applicant has satisfied this criterion of the Code. The Board has not relied on this possible failure, however, as the Applicant has failed to satisfy the residential density and general plan criteria of the Zoning Code. If required to make a finding on this criterion, the Board would find that the Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with it.

Section 49-24.C(4) of the Zoning Code directs that a proposed PUD "be in accordance with the objectives and principles of the general plan." The "general plan" of the Town is reflected by the Town's Comprehensive Plan, recently adopted in August 1994. That Plan is generally reflective of the "comprehensive plan" under Section 272-(a) of the Town Law. The "general plan" referenced in Section 49-24.C(4) of the Zoning Code, therefore, is in Grand Island comparable to the 1994 Comprehensive Plan. As discussed below, the proposed Southpointe PUD could not satisfy the requirement of Section 49-24.D(l) (b) that, as a condition of Planning Board approval, a PUD "be consistent with the Grand Island Comprehensive Plan." The Planning Board has found that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

3. The Town Comprehensive Plan

The Town had authorized its planning consulting firm to start the initial phase of updating the 1969 Town Comprehensive Plan in September 1990. During the ensuing several years, there was a public input and review process, including an environmental review

15


under SEQRA. A new, updated Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Town Board in August 1994.

The 1969 Plan described the Site as suitable for residential development with preservation of open space along Spicer Creek. It recommended that the Site be designated for single-family units, with a density of no greater than 2.178 dwelling unit per gross acre. The Site was located in District IV of the 1969 Plan, which at the time of the Plan's adoption was one of the fastest growing residential areas in the Town, and which was expected to continue such development. The Site was not situated in a Town sewer district, however, and the 1969 Plan recommended that undeveloped land within existing sewer districts should be developed before expanding existing sewer districts or creating new districts.

The updated 1994 Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of goals and objectives with regard to land use, transportation, government service and utilities, visual resources, cultural resources, open space and recreation, business and employment, housing and environmental resources. The Plan redefines basic land use concepts of the municipality, and reflects the Town's comprehensive land use planning.

The Comprehensive Plan contains a Land Use Plan intended to guide the Town in addressing planning opportunities and issues. The Land Use Plan provides a basic land use concept that emphasizes preservation of the Town's rural and open character. Among the key features of the Land Use Plan and thus of the Comprehensive Plan are: a strong community-scale center for commercial, retail and office uses in proximity to the intersection of Baseline Road, Whitehaven Road and Grand Island Boulevard (the Town Center area); the use of hamlets to service residential neighborhoods near the intersections of East River Road and Whitehaven Road, Ransom and Stony Point Road, and on Love Road near Beaver Island Parkway; retention of a large portion of the western part of the Town as non-sewered to accommodate low density development; extensions of public sewers in the northwest portion of the Town; and provision for a diversity of land uses and housing types.

The goals and objectives articulated in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan include the following:

o Land Use Goal: ensure the maintenance of low profile, high density development while maximizing the preservation of open space.

o Transportation Goal: minimize traffic congestion, maintain existing roads and ensure improvements are beneficial to the Town.

and that

traffic future

o Government Services/Utilities Goal: promote development, maintenance and enhancement of government and community uses in a

16


cost effective manner.

o Visual Resources Goal: enhance and maintain visual resources of the Town.

o Cultural Resources Goal: promote the Town's cultural anql historic heritage.

o Open Space and Recreation Goal: improve and expand recreational facilities and open space.

o Business and Employment Goal: preserve and strengthen the Town's economy and encourage a diverse economic base.

o Housing Goal: promote a variety of affordable and accessible opportunities for quality housing.

o Environmental Resources Goal: preserve and maintain the Town's environmental features.

The 1994 Plan, in its Comprehensive Plan Map component, designates the Site as appropriate for "Low Density Residential Development." The characteristics of such a development include large lot regulations (0. 3 dwelling units/acre), on-site waste disposal systems, large tracts, low volume roads, preservation of large areas for open space/passive recreation, cluster subdivisions, and development and walking and bicycle trails.

The Plan describes the Spicer Creek corridor and the State wetlands on the Site as appropriate for open space and recreation, such as trail systems.

4. Consistency With The Comprehensive Plan

The proposed rezoning of the Site and the creation of a new sewer district for the Southpointe PUD are inconsistent with important elements of the 1994 Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan and provisions relating directly to the Site.

The Comprehensive Plan Map of the 1994 Plan designates the Site as low density residential, with a recommended density of 0.3 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Board has opined that the density restrictions recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, coupled with regulations applicable to the installation of septic systems, would yield 85 residential dwellings for the Site. The proposed Southpointe PUD would include a mixture of 640 dwelling units, with a density (as calculated for the EIS) of 3.5 du/ac. This density is substantially in excess of the density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Site remain nonsewered and employ on-site waste disposal systems. The proposed

17


PUD entails the use of sewers rather than on-site septic systems, which is not consistent with the Plan.

The Applicant has stated that since the adoption of the 1969 Plan further development had occurred in the northern sewer district and that, consequently, the Applicant "could reasonably assume that the [Site] would soon be included in a sewer district." (Letter from Applicant's Counsel to Supervisor Pax, dated August 11, 1997 at 3.) The Board need not address the Applicant's assumptions regarding the 1969 Plan as the proposed action is guided by the 1994 Plan, not the superseded 1969 Plan.

The Comprehensive Plan states that:

Excess sewage treatment plant capacity should be directed toward avoiding the contamination of the East branch of the Niagara River. This strategy would require that existing dwellings and any new development in the Low Density Residential Area along East River Road be given first priority in the allocation of capacity.

(DEIS at 3-32.)

The Applicant believes that the extension of a sewer district to the Site (or, presumably, the creation of a new district) "is not entirely inconsistent with this policy because the proposed Southpointe PUD could be designed so as to reroute flows through the development that would mitigate currently distressed areas .... " (DEIS at 3-32.) The Town Board concurs that this mitigation is not "entirely in'Consistent" with this aspect of the Plan; the overall proposed development, however, as noted above, is not consistent with the Plan.

The alternative of having the Applicant utilize a package sewer treatment plant, rather than constructing sewerage that is part of the Town system, is also inconsistent with the 1994 Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the Plan's recommendation that the Site remain unsewered is to direct growth to certain areas of the Town and to foster low density residential development in the other areas.

The Plan calls for low road volumes; the proposed PUD would result in medium volumes of traffic although, as discussed below in the Transportation section of these Findings, most of the adverse traffic impacts could be mitigated.

The Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan provides for community-scale commercial, retail and office uses in proximity to the intersection of Whitehaven Road, Baseline Road and Grand Island Boulevard (the Town Center area). The proposed Southpointe PUD

18


would be inconsistent with this Plan, as it would place 240,000 square feet of commercial, retail, and office uses on the Site (exclusive of the Community Center). Of this total, 202,000 square feet would be along the Thruway and South Parkway. This commercial component would be well in excess of that needed to serve only residents of the proposed development. The Shopping Center Feasibility Report submitted by the Applicant indicates that the shopping center near the Thruway is designed to serve the population of the entire Town, not just the residents of the proposed PUD or the residential neighborhood in the vicinity of the Site. Further, as noted by the Applicant in its description of the Adult Lifestyle Community with Open Space Alternative (the "Open Space Preservation alternative") a commercial-retail-office component of approximately 68,000 square feet would be sufficient to serve an adult community of 549 units. Perforce, a commercialretail-office component of 240,000 square feet is substantially in excess of that needed to service either the proposed Southpointe PUD or the residential neighborhood. Consequently, the proposed Southpointe PUD is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's provisions designed to focus community-scale, commercial, retail and office uses at Town Center.

The Town Board recognizes that the Comprehensive Plan's provision for the Town Center has not yet been realized, and that some residents believe the Plan's goals may not be achieved. The Board also recognizes that the Town Center concept was reflected in the 1969 Comprehensive Plan.

The Board also recognizes that the Applicant's Shopping Center Feasibility Report indicates that there is sufficient demand to support the shopping center component of the proposed Southpointe PUD. The Report, however, does not address whether there is sufficient demand to support both the shopping center and planned Town Center (or for that matter, the 240,000 square foot of commercial, retail and office uses of the proposed PUD and the planned Town Center). The Report just indicates that the shopping center would tend to reduce prices in other retail stores on Grand Island.

Even if there were demand sufficient to support commercial and retail and office uses at both the proposed PUD and planned Town Center, construction of the Southpointe PUD prior to completion of the Town Center Plan would, in the Board's view, tend to diminish the likelihood of the success of the Town Center Plan. Nonetheless, the Board is not relying on this effect in these Findings.

The Board emphasizes, however, that the basic inconsistency of the commercial-retail-office component of the proposed PUD with the Comprehensive Plan does not derive from concepts of market demand or competition. Rather, it arises from the fact that the Comprehensive Plan calls for a single, Town-wide commercial-retail-

19


office center at the Town Center location near the intersection of Whitehaven Road, Baseline Road and Grand Island Boulevard, and the proposed Southpointe PUD would place a large-scale commercial development at a different location in the Town.

The Comprehensive Plan also provides for establishing or improving strategically located hamlet centers in three locations to service residential neighborhoods. These hamlets would be composed of individual commercial businesses that offer everyday items but would not be capable, even cumulatively, of meeting Townwide demand. One of the revitalized hamlets is proposed for the north side of Love Road, just east of Baseline Road, to serve residents in the southwest sector of Grand Island. The proposed Southpointe PUD may eliminate the need to revitalize this hamlet, as it would provide these services to that neighborhood. However, the size of the overall 240,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office uses associated with the proposed PUD is substantially in excess of that contemplated by the Plan for a hamlet, and thus conflicts with this provision of the Plan.

The proposed PUD would be consistent with certain aspects of the Comprehensive Plan's provisions regarding the Site. It would preserve large areas of natural resources, primarily wetlands, as open spaces, and some such areas are, and other areas may be, capable of being utilized for passive recreation. The PUD would preserve the Spicer Creek corridor, which is consistent with the Plan. The open space would be integrated into the proposed development via pedestrian and bicycle paths, and would be consistent with the Town Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. The provision of an ice skating rink and community center is also consistent with the Plan.

The proposed Southpointe PUD is consistent, at least to some extent, with most of the general goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan identified above. It is not consistent with the Land Use Goal of low density residential, but it is consistent with the open space preservation aspect of this goal. It is generally consistent with the Transportation Goal, to the extent that the impacts of the traffic that would be generated by the PUD could be mitigated. (See the Transportation section of these Findings.) It is consistent with the Government Services/Utilities Goal, to the extent it would increase the Town's tax base in an amount that would be expected to be greater than costs associated with the proposal. To the extent the proposed PUD would be an attractive and integrated project, it is consistent with the Visual Resources Goal. There would be no impact on achievement of the Cultural Resources Goal.

As noted above, the PUD would preserve public recreational opportunities; thus, it Open Space and Recreation Goal. By opportunities, the proposal is consistent

20

open space and provide is consistent with the providing employment

with the Business and


Employment Goal. By providing a variety of housing types, in particular several types of adult lifestyle housing, the PUD is consistent with the Housing Goal. Finally, the PUD is generally consistent with the Environmental Resources Goal, because it would preserve almost all of the Site's wetlands, including the Spicer Creek corridor.

Although the proposed PUD is consistent with most of the Plan's general goals and objectives, a majority of these provisions would also be met by realistic and well-designed development proposals for the Site. For example, the preservation of most of the Site's wetlands as open space would be expected for most development proposals. As a practical matter, neither the NYSDEC nor the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( "USACE") would allow a private housing or commercial project to develop the overwhelming majority of the 64 acres of regulated wetlands on the Site. Although such projects could include wetlands in individual lots, and thereby increase the likelihood of unlawful activities, the majority of the wetlands would remain undeveloped. These may also be used, to the extent practicable, to provide passive recreation. This would result in meeting several of the Plan's general goals and objectives. A well-designed project with appropriate design and sound architecture should be consistent with the Visual Resources Goal. And virtually any project would create some employment opportunities, at least in the construction stage. Thus, while the Comprehensive Plan's general goals and objectives are important, the consistency of the proposed Southpointe PUD with many of those general goals and objectives need not outweigh the inconsistency of the proposed Southpointe PUD with the Plan's designation of the Site for low-density residential use without sewers and the Plan's location of Town-wide commercial, retail and office uses at the Town Center location.

The Town Planning Board, in a Memorandum dated August 11, 1997, found that the proposed Southpointe PUD "does not comport" with the Comprehensive Plan, primarily for the reasons discussed above. The Planning Board also expressed concern that approval of the proposed PUD would set an adverse precedent for future development proposals that are not consistent with the Plan. The Town Board's Consultants expressed a similar concern that the approval of proposals that are clearly inconsistent with the Plan would diminish its effectiveness as a planning tool and encourage other proposals that would not be consonant with it.

The Town Board concurs with these concerns, and believes that approval of the proposed Southpointe PUD would establish a precedent that would be harmful to the Town's long-term interest in fostering land use planning and development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Town Board recognizes that each new application must be reviewed independently and that the decision on this matter would not set binding legal precedent. The Town Board also acknowledges that this application to rezone is somewhat

21


unusual, in that it seeks a rezoning to accommodate adult lifestyle housing.

The Town Board also acknowledges that the recent rezonings to allow expansion of operations at the Fujisawa and Life Technologies facilities could reasonably be viewed as decisions that, to some extent, were not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That perspective, however, reinforces the concern that another such decision -- and this one for an entirely new development with mixed uses rather than expansions of existing facilities would severely undercut the credibility of the Comprehensive Plan.

The Town Board believes that, despite its somewhat unusual aspects, approval of the proposed Southpointe PUD would have a serious detrimental impact on the viability and utility of the Comprehensive Plan and land use planning in Grand Island.

5. Land Use And Neighborhood Character

Land uses in the vicinity of the Site are varied, though primarily residential. They include an assortment of residential housing units, an elementary school, a restaurant and several commercial establishments. In addition, large, undeveloped tracts of land are scattered throughout the southwestern section of the Town, in which the Site is located. To the extent that the Southpointe PUD design maintains open space on the perimeters of the Site, and concentrates development on the remainder, it is consistent with the residential and limited commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Density of residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Site varies from 0.15 to 6.14 dwelling units per acre. Generally, the more intense residential areas are located to the south of the Site. They were generally developed prior to the advent of SEQRA and more refined land use planning by the Town. The density of the residential portion of the proposed PUD, as calculated by the Applicant for the EIS, would be 3.5 du/ac. This is not inconsistent with the density of residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Site.

The commercial-retail-office use of the proposed PUD, however, would be substantially larger than existing commercial establishments in the area of the Site and, indeed, anywhere on the Island. To this extent, the commercial component of the PUD would significantly alter neighborhood character by converting it from primarily residential to an area with a mixed residentialcommercial use. The Applicant believes that the placement of the 202,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office space proposed to be located near the Thruway provides a sound transition from the Thruway to the residential portion of the proposed development. This position is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as noted earlier. Moreover, this 202,000 square foot component would

22


introduce a new, large scale use into this area of the Town, and thus significantly affect community character.

The Applicant has proposed mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts of the proposed PUD on neighborhood character, such as maintenance of buffers, pedestrian scale building designs, compliance with architectural guidelines, linkage to surrounding neighborhoods by bicycle and foot paths, and integration of the residential and commercial components to create a neo-traditional town atmosphere. While laudable, these measures would not obviate the impact to neighborhood character associated with the addition of 240,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office uses in a primarily residential area of the Town.

E. Transportation

To determine the impacts of traffic from the proposed Southpointe PUD on the surrounding road network, the Applicant conducted a Traffic Impact Analysis. The Analysis studied the surrounding road network, gathered data from relevant sources and conducted traffic counts. The study assessed the impacts of the traffic that would be generated by the proposed PUD on 4 signalized and 4 unsignalized key intersections, as well as impacts on the southbound Thruway ramp to South Parkway and on Thruway Bridges. Analyses were conducted for the weekday AM, midday and PM peaks and Saturday peak hours. The traffic impacts on each of the three phases of the proposed PUD were also assessed.

The Capacity Analysis was based on existing conditions, future conditions with and without the proposed PUD, and conditions with the implementation of mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant. Background traffic volumes were developed for each stage of the PUD, accounting for growth rate and the potential diversion through the Site of vehicles utilizing Southpointe Boulevard to access the Thruway. Background traffic forecasts also accounted for the planned expansions of the Fujisawa and Life Technologies facilities and the potential closure of Carl Road.

Estimates of PUD-generated traffic were made based on the methodology contained in the Trip Generation; Fifth Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers). For each phase, the study conservatively assumed that all of the age-restricted patio/single family homes woµld be converted to non-age restricted single family housing; this increased the percentage of non-restricted housing by 28 percent. PUD-generated traffic was assigned to the road network on the basis of existing traffic patterns and professional judgment.

Analyses were conducted, based on the traffic volumes for the various conditions, using the current Highway Capacity Manual methodology. The results of the study indicate that, with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the study area

23


intersections would, as a whole, operate at an acceptable Level of Service ("LOS") (defined for the EIS as LOS "D") . The Grand Island Boulevard-Staley Avenue intersection now operates below acceptable levels during the AM peak hour, but with the implementation of mitigation measures, with or without the proposed PUD, could achieve LOS "C".

The ramp analysis indicates that the LOS at the southbound Thruway ramp to South Parkway would not be materially affected, with the LOS remaining the same with or without the PUD for most directions. Under several conditions, the LOS would drop in certain directions from "C" to "D". According to the traffic analysis, the PUD would account for approximately 4 to 5 percent of the total traffic utilizing the I-190 corridor at full build-out. This additional traffic would not cause a deterioration in LOS on the Thruway as compared to projected background conditions.

The existing road network is adequate for commercial vehicles that would service the commercial-retail-office portion of the PUD. A preliminary signal warrants analysis was prepared for the proposed South Avenue-Southpointe Boulevard intersection. Based on this analysis, a traffic signal at the proposed South AvenueSouthpointe Boulevard-Red Jacket intersection would be warranted with the Phase I development in place. A revised analysis, based on actual field conditions, would be required by the New York State Department of Transportation ( "NYSDOT") before approval of the traffic signal. ·

The following mitigation measures were incorporated into the Traffic Impact Analysis and would be necessary for its conclusions regarding the impact of traffic from the proposed PUD to be sustained:

o Improvements to the South Parkway-Red Jacket-Southpointe Boulevard, including signalization, land improvements and construction of turning lanes prior to implementation of Phase I and additional lane improvements prior to Phase III. The Applicant has agreed to be responsible for the costs of these improvements.

The alternative of closing Carl Road, suggested by NYSDOT, would not materially affect this intersection.

o Construction of the Site driveway-Staley Road intersection prior to Phase I, for which the Applicant would pay the entire cost.

o Improvements to the Baseline Road-Southpointe Boulevard intersection, including a southbound turn lane from Baseline Road to the Site driveway, to be completed prior to Phase I and for which the Applicant would pay the full costs.

o Improvements to the Grand Island Boulevard-Staley Road

24


intersection, including a southbound right turn lane on Grand Island Boulevard by Phase I and an eastbound right turn lane with signal modifications following Phase III. These improvements would be necessitated by background conditions, without the proposed PUD. The Applicant has agreed to pay a proportionate share of the costs of these improvements. NYSDOT has commented that the Applicant should be required to construct all highway mitigation measures.

Signal phasing-timing modifications are also necessary for this intersection; if these improvements were not made, the proposed PUD would cause the deterioration of LOS from "B" to "F" at Phases II and III.

F. Community Services

1. Educational Facilities

The EIS assumed that the adult lifestyle portion of the proposed PUD would not generate schoolchildren and that the 209 single family dwellings would generate 943 school-aged children. These additional children could be accommodated by the schoo~ system, which has excess capacity exceeding 2,000 students. ··

The EIS also assessed impacts if 28 percent of the agerestricted uni ts were converted for single family residential dwellings. In these circumstances, the proposed PUD would generate 149 school-aged children. This increased number of students could still be accommodated by the school system.

2. Recreational Facilities

The proposed Southpointe PUD would provide a variety of recreational opportunities, including parks, passive recreation, walking and bicycle trails and an ice skating rink. The provision of 71 acres of open space meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, as discussed above. It is not clear whether the proposed PUD meets the requirement that 10 percent of the Site area, or 28 acres, be available for free public recreation.

Many of the recreational opportunities associated with the proposed PUD are consistent with the goals contained in the Town's 1992 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan ("Open Space Plan").

o Adult lifestyle housing: The proposed 15,000 square foot Community Center and adjacent grounds would provide recreational opportunities for the anticipated 712 residents of this portion of the proposed PUD. These residents would also use the walking and bicycle trails, the utility corridor and wetland interpretative areas, as well as any passive recreation areas that were included as part of the development.

25


o Market Rate Housing: The Open Space Plan indicates a need for neighborhood parks. The proposed PUD would include 1.6 acre park in the southwest portion of the Site that could include a field and children's play area. Another 0.7 acres of parks would serve the population of the non-restricted housing, including one near the existing Water Tower Park, which could be incorporated into a single larger facility. This acreage (without including walking or bicycle trails) would meet the Town's standard of providing 2.5 acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 population for the non-restricted portion of the PUD and help reduce future anticipated recreational facility deficiencies identified in the Open Space Plan.

o The proposed skating rink would serve Town residents. Its construction would help the Town to meet its standard of one rink per 4,500 persons, which would not be met in the year 2002 without the proposed rink.

o The proposed bicycle paths could be linked to the Town Bikeway at South Parkway and serve as a link within the Town's system.

o The proposed PUD would preserve approximately 64 acres of wooded wetlands, which the Applicant plans to dedicate to a conservancy group. An additional 24. 5 acres of wetlands and buffer areas, including walking and bicycle trails, interpretative areas, picnic sites and exercise stations, would be maintained as open space. This total of 88.5 acres of open space would exceed the deficiency of 82.3 acres of open space projected by the Town for the year 2002.

3. Employment

The proposed PUD would generate 1,050 short-term construction industry jobs for the three phases (approximately 350 jobs per phase). Upon full project build out, the 255,000 square feet of commercial, retail, office and community facilities would generate 8 O 9 new jobs in retail services, the food store, medical and professional services sectors.

4. Solid Waste

During construction, soils would be stockpiled and reused when practical. Trees and brush would be removed and transplanted if practical or chipped and used as mulch. Construction debris generated during construction would be removed from the Site by private contractors and disposed of at State-permitted landfills._

Operational waste from the PUD would be handled by private contractors. Non-recyclable residential waste would be disposed of at the Niagara Falls Waste-to-Energy Plant, which has ample capacity to accommodate the increased waste.

26


5. Sanitary Sewer

The Applicant proposed two alternatives to accommodate effluent from the PUD. The first, and the Applicant's preferred alternative, is the creation of a new Town sewer district and linkage of the project to the Town system. This would entail the construction of a master pump station to collect all flow from within the Site, and pumping this flow under I-190 and along Staley Road to one of two existing Town force mains, from whence it would flow to and be treated at the Town STP. The Applicant would pay the costs of installing the sewer system on the Site. The PUD would generate sewer revenues for the Town. Using the Town's existing cost recovery formula and 1995 rates, the sewer revenues at full build out would be approximately $52,000 of capital cost revenue and $247,000 of operation and maintenance cost revenue~ These revenues would be expected to cover the Town' s cost of operating and maintaining the Site's sewer system. There would also be one-time tap-in fees for residential units that would range from $325 to $450 per unit and for commercial users that would range from $450 to $650 per connection.

The alternative is the Applicant's construction of a selfcontained package STP to collect and treat all waste from the PUD. The package STP would be located on-site and would pump the discharged effluent to the Niagara River. This alternative would require, among other approvals, a permit from the NYSDEC.

The Town's sewer system and STP have excess capacity under dry-weather flow conditions. The STP has an average daily flow capacity of 3.5 million gallons per day ("mgd"). Existing flow is 1.87 mgd, and the proposed PUD would input an additional 0.17 mgd. This would leave an excess capacity of 1.46 mgd during dry weather conditions. Under the Comprehensive Plan, this excess capacity would first be utilized by development of properties within existing sewer districts before being made available to areas not within such districts.

There are, however, capacity problems during wet weather flows, due to the Town's sewer infrastructure rather than the capacity of the STP. Because most of the main sewers in the Town are nearly 30 years old, there are many areas of the Island which have been subject to excessive amounts of wet-weather sewer flow for many years. These excessive wet-weather flows are due to a variety of reasons, including groundwater leakage into deteriorated sewers (infiltration) and direct entry of groundwater or storm water into sewers via sump pumps and road run-off (inflow).

The existing STP does not have sufficient treatment or retention capacity to accommodate peak existing wet-weather flows from existing sewer districts in the Town (11.5 mgd), plus peak build-out flow from potential future development in existing sewer districts (5.05 mgd), plus peak existing wet-weather flow which

27


currently overflows Pump Stations Numbers 7, 8 and 9, plus peak build-out flow from the proposed PUD (0.61 mgd). Increasing the population by 28 percent to account for the conversion of th~ larger age-restricted units to non-restricted housing would not materially change this analysis. (This analysis does not account for water conservation measures (water saving plumbing fixtures) that would be utilized within the proposed PUD to the maximum extent practicable.)

NYSDEC has mandated that current wet-weather overflows from the Town sewer system be contained within the Town sewer system rather than being discharged to the Niagara River. As a consequence, portions of the sewer system downstream of the Site may be required to handle higher flow during wet weather than they currently do. Because wet-weather flow increases in the downstream sewer system would exacerbate current wet-weather operation, it is expected that an on-going sewer study by the Town's consultant (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.), when completed, will address the extent to which the sewer system's capacity should be increased to accommodate additional wet-weather flow or, alternatively, the extent to which wet-weather flow should be removed from the system.

The Applicant identified several proposed mitigation measures to ameliorate the effect of the PUD on the Town's sewer system. One mitigation measure would minimize sewer flow generated within the Project; another mitigation measure would enable the Town to eliminate one existing wet-weather overflow location, to reduce existing flow in another area, and to eliminate two pump stations and associated operation and maintenance costs; another mitigation measure would provide the Town with tax revenues for anticipated capital expenses relating to existing wet-weather sewer problems; and another mitigation measure would provide the Town with direct financial assistance for particular anticipated sewer expenses. The Applicant has also indicated that it would, if requested, be interested in discussing with the Town setting aside a portion of the Site to locate a wet weather overflow facility, which would serve to lessen the rate of flow to the STP and reduce overflow events.

The Town Board finds that the proposed PUD would negatively affect existing problems of the Town in regard to wet weather flow conditions. The mitigation measures identified by the Applicant would serve to ameliorate such impacts.

6. Town Maintained Roads

The proposed PUD's main access street (Southpointe Boulevard) between South Parkway and Baseline Road and radial residentiai streets would be dedicated by the Applicant to the Town. This would require that the Town provide snow plowing services and maintenance after construction. The remaining side streets in the development would be privately owned and maintained.

28


Mitigation for these additional burdens on the Town includes having the homeowners and businesses maintain the median along Southpointe Boulevard.

7. Fiscal And School District Impacts

A Fiscal Impact Analysis was prepared by the Applicant for the proposed PUD. According to this evaluation, the combined annual revenues to the Town and School District from real estate property taxes would exceed combined Town and School District expenditures to serve residents and commercial users at the Site.

The annual combined revenues would be $1,577,874. These revenues would offset annual combined expenditures of $1,378,987 for a net annual benefit of $198,887. This net benefit is due primarily to the inclusion of the adult lifestyle housing, which does not generate school aged children.

The study also evaluated Town and School District revenues and expenditures separately, and by Phases, of the Southpointe PUD. The following charts, taken from the EIS, reflect these revenues and expenditures.

Town Property Tax Comparison

PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III

Total Revenue $74,549 $164,854 $292,467

Total Expenditure $179,370 $397,943 $814,391 :::,:• 1::::::::11• :1111:1::::::::(:1

1m1:1:)::1:1:::::::::

111:1::

11:::::::::::1:::1:::::::1::::r::1:::::1:::::::::(:1:111 11::1:::1:1::1::):::::1:]:1:1:1:1:

11::11:11:1::111:::1::1:1

11:~::::[::::::::(ii1ililil:11:11:1:11:)ii

1:::::

School District Fiscal Impact

PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III

School Tax Revenue $334,203 $390,339 $577,461,

School Expenditure $38,263 $126,269 $400,064

1:1:1111:1:11::1:1:1:1:(1111:11),1:::1:1:1:::::1::::1::1:1:1:

1:::::1:1:::1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:::::::1:::1:n:1:1:::1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:::::::11:11:1111:11:11:1::1:rn:::::1:1:1:1:1:

1:1:::1:1:1:1:111:1

11:11:1:111:11:1:1n1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1::::1::1:1111:11:1::1:1::1:1:

8. Demography

The proposed PUD, at full build-out, would result in an

29


additional 1,276 Town residents. This figure represents 4.8 percent of the additional 26,500 persons that are planned for the Town's build-out population, or 2.9 percent of that total population. This impact may be considered insignificant when considering the Town's past growth and anticipated build-out population.

Al though the Applicant has planned for three construction phases to be implemented over at least 8 years, actual market conditions could influence the time frame for project completion.

9. Social Services

The commercial facilities proposed for the PUD could incorporate social and community services. The Applicant has indicated an interest in providing space for a potential YMCA branch and a location to hold credit courses offered by Erie County Community College. The Applicant has also discussed with the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra allowing components of the Orchestra to play at the Site.

G. Cultural Resources

Development of the proposed PUD would result in a variety of "built" visual settings replacing existing scrub/shrub and wooded areas on approximately two-thirds of the Site. The placement, bulk and aesthetic appearance of the residential, commercial and office buildings would be guided by Architectural Standards formulated by the Applicant. These standards would also govern materials, colors and ancillary design features of buildings and parking areas.

Portions of the proposed development would be visible from vehicles traveling along the Thruway, South Parkway and the Thruway ramp to South Parkway. The principal views would be from vehicles traveling southbound on this ramp, whose occupants would view the retail buildings. These views would include the general retail plaza, the structure with the largest visual profile. Views from traveling vehicles would be for short periods of time.

Overall, pursuant to a Visual Assessment prepared on behalf of the Applicant, the Southpointe PUD would not present a significant contrast to residential developments and commercial uses within~ mile of the Site; generally, the large extent of open space would help to make the proposed project compatible with neighboring uses; The principal exception is the 202,000 square of commercial, retail and office space feet near the Thruway and South Parkway, which is substantially larger than other commercial developments in the area (and, indeed, in the Town).

The principal mitigation measures include: the preservation of wetlands and additional open space, which serves to maintain the visual character of major focal points within the Site; the provision of landscaping, which would buffer many of the views of

30


and from the development and soften others, particularly the visual impacts of views of the Thruway and South Parkway from internal residential areas; and adherence to the Architectural Standards described above.

H. Geology, Soils And Topography

The Site is fairly flat, with only minimal changes in slope. The predominant soils on the Site (Odessa) are generally deep, nearly level and somewhat poorly drained. The other soils types commonly found on the Site (Schoharie and Lakemont) are also deep and nearly level but allow for better drainage.

Impacts arising from soil wetness would be mitigated by typical construction measures, including soil drainage and stabilization and the use of spread footings and controlled fills. Although erosion potential of the Site's soils is low, measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation and prevent the siltation of streams on the Site, particularly Spicer Creek, would be implemented during construction in accordance with the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. These measures would include silt screens and haybales and a surface debris curtain parallel to the shores of the River.

I. Surface Water

The principal body of water on the Site is Spicer Creek, which flows northeasterly and drains into the Niagara River. The creek is channelized in the southern portion of the Site. The creek is classified by the NYSDEC east of I-190, off the Site, as B. On the Site, however, the stream is intermittent and not mapped by NYSDEC; thus, it is classified as D. This classification indicates that water is suitable for fishing and primary and secondary contact recreation, but is not suitable for fish propagation.

Two other unnamed intermittent channels drain the Site, one near Staley Road and the other north of and generally parallel t6 Spicer Creek. Both drainages are not mapped by NYSDEC and;' consequently, are also classified as D.

The principal impacts of Site development would be from altered drainage patterns and increases in runoff generated by the construction of impervious surfaces. The increases in runoff would be accommodated by on-Site stormwater detention ponds, which would be located adjacent to, but outside, of State-regulated wetlands, but within some areas of federally-designated wetlands. Stormwater would be conveyed from developed areas into the ponds. The ponds would detain stormwater runoff so that post-development discharges would be no greater than pre-discharge levels (under a 25 year rainfall event standard) . The ponds, as proposed by the Applicant, would reduce peak stormwater discharges to Spicer Creek (again, under a 25 year rainfall event).

31


The detention ponds would also detain runoff and allow for the settling out of particulates and, to some extent, for the chemical and biological removal of contaminants typically found in urban runoff. Therefore, most sediments and other solids carried in stormwater would be captured prior to being discharged into Spicer Creek. No impacts on water quality within the Creek would be expected from the proposed action.

J. Noise

Based on field sampling, the ambient noise levels at and around the Site range from 46 DBA to 80 DBA. These levels are considerably higher than generally associated with residential areas, and are attributable primarily to noise from traffic on the Thruway, South Parkway and surrounding streets.

Noise from operation of the proposed PUD, most particularly project-generated traffic, is not expected to cause an increase in existing levels by more than 5 DBA. Consequently, increases in noise are not expected to be significant and should be consistent with the Town's Noise Pollution Control Ordinance.

Short-term construction noise from heavy equipment may exceed ambient noise levels. These levels would be consistent with typical construction noise levels. Mitigation measures would include the use of modern equipment, noise reduction devices such as mufflers, and a regulated construction schedule.

K. Terrestrial And Aquatic Resources

The proposed Southpointe PUD, at full build-out, would impact 187 acres of existing site vegetation, including 42 acres of wooded uplands and 130 acres of successional field and shrubland. Approximately 17 additional acres of uplands would be removed, with 3.5 acres of that loss being replaced by landscaping.

Wooded uplands and successional field and shrub land are common in the region and secure in the State. The loss of wooded upland, for example, would represent slightly less than 1 percent of this species on Grand Island. No endangered or threatened species have been observed on the Site.

Wildlife populations currently existing on the portions of the Site proposed to be developed would be impacted by the loss of habitat resulting from the removal of vegetation. Larger mammals and most bird populations would be displaced; less mobile species, such as reptiles and small rodents, would be eliminated. If developed, the Site would continue to support populations of songbirds and small mammals.

Impacts to vegetation would be mitigated principally by the use of regionally native vegetation in landscaping the Site. The

32


primary means of mitigating wildlife impacts would be the preservation of large contiguous open space and wetland areas.

The Site contains approximately 54.6 acres of New York State regulated wetlands (TW-16 and TW-27), as well as several small pockets and larger areas of federal wetlands, which total 70 acres. Approximately 5.7 acres of federal wetlands (including 0.46 acres of State wetlands) would be impacted by the proposed PUD. These activities would require permits from the NYSDEC and the USACE. The remaining approximately 64 acres of wetlands would be left undisturbed and preserved in perpetuity; the Applicant has proposed to donate these wetland to a not-for-profit land conservancy~ Mitigation for the impacts to federal wetlands is proposed to be accomplished off-site at a location to be determined. Impacts to the State wetlands may be mitigated by on-site creation of wetlands in an extension of a stormwater management detention pond.

L. Air Resources

The potential impacts of the proposed PUD are both short-term, from construction and long-term from operations. The primary pollutants of concern are carbon monoxide ("CO") and particulates from vehicular emissions and particulates from fugitive dust caused by construction.

The region is classified as attainment for both CO and particulate matter under the Clean Air Act and concentrations of these pollutants have generally been decreasing. Given these circumstances, and the generally acceptable Levels of Service of the road network if the PUD is developed (assuming the implementation of all traffic mitigation measures), operational impacts on CO and particulates should not be significant.

The potential generation of particulates from exhaust emissions and construction practices would be mitigated through the use of several measures. Watering and other methods to control dust would be implemented, including the measures to control soil erosion and sedimentation. The use of modern construction equipment and avoidance of unnecessary idling would reduce unnecessary creation of particulates.

M. Alternatives

Five principal alternatives to the proposed Southpointe PUD were considered: the No Action/No Build alternative; the No Action/As-of-Right under R-lA Zoning With Sewers; the No Action/Asof-Right under R-lA Zoning With Septic Systems; the Low Density Residential Zoning (0.3 du/ac); and the Open Space Preservation alternative. In addition, the Applicant conducted an alternative site assessment.

33


1. The No Action/No Build Alternative

This alternative would avoid all of the impacts of the proposed action. However, none of the benefits associated with the action would be realized. No construction jobs or construction-related tax revenues would be generated; project-generated jobs would not be created; no new annual sales and property tax revenues would be generated to add to the Town'$ tax base; no mitigation relating to the Town Sewer System would be provided; additional commercial-retail-office activity may not be added to the Town; and the Town may lose an opportunity for the development of adult lifestyle housing in the municipality.

This alternative would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's objective of protecting natural areas and open space. It would also be consistent with the Plan insofar as commercial development and sewers would not be on the Site. No action would not be consistent with certain other goals and objectives of the Plan that contemplate some development.

2. The No Action/As-of Right Alternative With Sewers

This alternative would involve the development of 419 units of single family housing as a conventional subdivision under R-lA zoning. There would be no commercial, retail or off ice uses. Sewer service would be provided either by an extension of a Town sewer district to the Site or the construction of a package STP~ The 419 units is the number that the Applicant believes can be accommodated on the Site as-of-right under R-lA zoning. The Town does not concur with this opinion; however, that number was used for analysis purposes in the EIS.

The residential units would be on 20,000 square foot lots. Density would be 2.178 du/ac; this was determined by subtracting from the 284 acre Site size 70 acres of wetlands and 10 percent of the remaining acreage to account for private streets.

The Applicant has indicated that the absence of a commercial component, and thus the lesser income that would be generated, would limit its ability to provide many of the recreational amenities associated with the proposed Southpointe PUD.

This alternative would yield a population of 1,131 persons, assuming an average of 2.7 persons per dwelling. Included in this build-out population would be 145 schoolchildren, a number well within School District capacity.

Although 70 acres of wetlands would be preserved, there would be no assurance of public access thereto. There would be no homeowner's association to own and maintain open space, including wetlands. According to the Applicant, the economics of this alternative would not allow donation of a large tract of wetlands

34


''

to a conservancy for preservation. Instead, portions of the wetlands would be included within contiguous properties, thereby increasing the likelihood of activities (even if illegal) in such areas. The 10 percent of the Site dedicated for public use would impose a burden on the Town, which would be responsible for maintenance and insurance.

This alternative would generate only short-term construction jobs, but no permanent jobs as would be generated by the commercial retail, office and community facilities of the proposed Southpointe PUD.

This alternative would likely generate demand for limited offSite commercial and retail activity. Presumably, such development would be situated in areas that are zoned for such uses. This demand might augment the revitalization of the hamlet on the north side of Love Road, just east of Baseline Road, as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.

It is the Applicant's opinion that this alternative, unlike the proposed Southpointe PUD, does not take into account the Site's location next to the Thruway. The area bordering on I-190, in the Applicant's opinion, is undesirable for residential development and a transition is needed from the Thruway to residential uses. This alternative, as conceived by the Applicant, would not provide such a transition. The Board notes, however, that site plan review could result in the imposition of buffers between the Thruway and residential development.

This alternative would generate 314 AM trips and 419 PM trips, substantially less than the proposed Southpointe PUD. This traffic would not be expected to significantly impact the road network.

Under this alternative, there would be a combined net loss of $184,248 annually for the Town and School District.

Sewage flows from this alternative would be slightly less than those from the proposed Southpointe PUD: 0.14 mgd average flow and 0.52 mgd peak flow. The impacts would be similar. The Applicant has not indicated whether the mitigation measures connected to the proposed Southpointe PUD would be included in this alternative; Revenues associated with connections to the Town Sewer System would not be generated by use of a private STP.

This alternative would not meet the described need for adult lifestyle housing to accommodate the older populace. It is unlikely that retirement aged persons would be interested in a conventional subdivision without the specialized services and recreation offered by an adult lifestyle type of development.

Finally, this alternative would not be consistent with aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Density would be 2.179 du/ac, well over

35


the Plan's recommended density of 0.3 du/ac. Although the major State and federal wetlands would be undeveloped, protection would depend on the action of individual homeowners or the Town. Thus, minor incursions and activities would be more likely than if these areas were owned by a homeowner's association or dedicated to a conservancy organization. Walking and bicycle trails would not be included in this alternative. The alternative would not contribute to achieving several goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including land use, transportation, and government service.

3. The No Action/As-Of Right Alternative With Septic Systems

This alternative would involve the development of 279 units of single family housing as a conventional subdivision under R-lA zoning. There would be no commercial, retail or off ice uses. There would be no sewers; private septic systems would be utilized. The 279 units is the number that the Applicant believes can be accommodated on the Site as-of-right under R-lA zoning (without sewers). The Town does not concur with this opinion; however, that number was used for analysis purposes in the EIS.

The residential units would be on 30,000 square foot lots. Density would be 1.452 du/ac; this was determined by subtracting from the 284 acre Site size 70 acres of wetlands and 10 percent of the remaining acreage to account for private streets.

The Applicant has indicated that the absence of a commercial component, and thus the lesser income that would be generated, would limit its ability to provide many of the recreational amenities associated with the proposed Southpointe PUD.

This alternative would yield a population of 753 persons, assuming an average of 2.7 persons per dwelling. Included in this build-out population would be 126 schoolchildren, a number well within school system capacity.

The impacts of this alternative on wetlands/open space, employment, land use and public need would be comparable to the No Action/As-of Right Alternative discussed above.

This alternative would generate 209 AM trips and 279 PM trips, substantially less than the proposed Southpointe PUD. This traffic would not be expected to significantly impact the road network.

Under this alternative, there would be a combined net loss of $135,017 annually for the Town and School District.

Sewage flows from this alternative would be less than those from the proposed Southpointe PUD; 0.09 mgd average flow and 0.36 mgd peak flow. Sewage would be treated on-site, in private septic systems. Revenues associated with connections to the Town Sewer System would not be generated.

36


This alternative would be consistent with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan that residential development at the Site employ private septic systems. It would not be consistent with the density recommended by the Plan; the density of 1.452 du/ac exceeds the Plan's recommended density of 0.3 du/ac. The consistency with other elements of the Plan, and its goals and objectives, is similar to the relationship to the Plan of the No Action/As-of Right Alternative.

Although the major State and federal wetlands would be undeveloped, protection would depend on the action of individual homeowners or the Town. Thus, minor incursions and activities would be more likely than if these areas were owned by homeowner's association or dedicated to a conservancy organization. Walking and bicycle trails would not be included in this alternative. This alternative would not contribute to achieving several goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including land use, transportation, and government service.

4. R-lA Low Density Alternative

This alternative would involve the development of 85 single family lots, each 3. 34 acres in size, as a conventional subdi vision. Density would be O. 3 du/ac, as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. There would be no commercial, retail or office uses. Individual septic systems would be utilized. The 85 lots is the number that the Planning Board believes can be accommodated on the Site consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

The Applicant has indicated that the absence of a commercial component, and thus the lesser income that would be generated, would limit its ability to provide many of the recreational amenities associated with the proposed PUD.

This alternative would yield a population of 255 persons, assuming an average of 3 persons per dwelling due to the large lots. Included in this build-out population would be 38 schoolchildren, well within school system capacity.

The impacts of this alternative on wetlands/open space, employment, land use and public need would be comparable to the No Action/As-of Right Alternatives discussed above.

This alternative would generate 65 AM trips and 87 PM trips, substantially less than the proposed Southpointe PUD. This traffic would not be expected to significantly impact the road network. '

Under this alternative, there would be a combined net benefit of $147,899 annually for the Town and School District.

Sewage flows from this alternative would be less than those from the proposed Southpointe PUD and would be treated on-site by

37


' '

private septic systems. Revenues associated with connections to the Town sewer system would not be generated.

This alternative is consistent with the maximum density of 0.3 dwelling units per acre recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. It is also consistent with the Plan's recommendation that residential development at the Site employ private septic systems. The consistency with other elements of the Plan, and its goals and objectives, is similar to the relationship to the Plan of the No Action/As-of Right Alternatives.

The Applicant has indicated that this alternative does not fulfill its objectives.

5. Adult Lifestyle Community With Open Space Preservation

This alternative would involve several elements in a PUD: 549 adult lifestyle units, connected to public sewers; 38,000 square feet of "main street-type" mixed use (commercial, retail and office) primarily to serve the adult lifestyle community; a 15,000 square foot community center to serve the adult lifestyle community; 30,000 square feet of office space near the Thruway; and 40 unrestricted single family residential units, which would utilize private septic systems. Approximately 161 acres, or 57 percent of the Site, would be preserved as open space and buffer area. This alternative would require a rezoning from R-lA/R-lB to PUD.

The design of this alternative would generally be similar to the proposed Southpointe PUD, with several exceptions. All but 30,000 square feet of the 202,000 square feet of commercial component near the Thruway would be eliminated (30,000 square feet of office space is proposed for that area); access to the Site would be through an extension of Glen Avon Road to access Love Road, as well as at Staley Road and Baseline Road; only the adult lifestyle portion of the Site (including the mixed use sector and community center) would be sewered; and the adult lifestyle component of the Southpointe PUD would be increased from 411 units to 549 units, while the unrestricted single family dwellings would be reduced from 209 to 40 houses.

This alternative would yield a total population of 1,041; of this population, 933 would be residents of the adult lifestyle housing (assuming compliance with the Fair Housing Act) and 108 of the unrestricted housing. The number of school-aged children would be 18, well within school system capacity.

This alternative would preserve a total of 161.31 acres, comprised of wetlands, buffer areas, woodlands, and scrub/shrub areas. The crossing of the Spicer Creek wetland would be eliminated. The on-site wetlands would remain connected by undisturbed, vegetated wildlife corridors.

38


Under the Applicant's description of this alternative, the 161. 31 acres would be operated as a wetland mitigation bank, subject to the approval of the USACE and NYSDEC under a November 1995 federal guidance. A wetlands mitigation bank operates by enhancing, restoring or creating wetlands, which are used to mitigate impacts to wetlands from activities in other parts of a particular geographic area (generally within a watershed area, such as the Niagara River watershed) . The USACE and NYSDEC would participate in formulating the wetland mitigation banking plan.

The mitigation bank wetlands, under the federal guidance referred to above, must be preserved in perpetuity. Under this alternative, the Applicant would donate the entire 161.31 acres of the proposed mitigation bank to the Western New York Land Conservancy for stewardship and preservation in perpetuity. This donation would occur either piece-meal upon the sale of mitigation credits, or in the entirety after the last wetland mitigation bank credit has been sold. Under the proposed Southpointe PUD design, 84 acres of wetlands are proposed to be donated to the Western New York Land Conservancy. Thus, this alternative would permanently preserve an additional 77.3 acres of green space and habitat areas.

In this alternative, State wetlands would not be disturbed; therefore, no NYSDEC wetland permit for such activities would be necessary. Approximately 1.7 acres of federal wetlands would be disturbed, rather than the approximately 5.8 acres to be affected by the proposed Southpointe PUD. A permit from the USACE would be necessary. This permit would likely require on-site mitigation, which could be provided in the wetland mitigation bank on the Site.

Short-term construction jobs would be generated by the development of this alternative, although the number would be less than the proposed Southpointe PUD, primarily because of the elimination of the shopping center near the Thruway. The mixed use component for the adult lifestyle residents would create 160 new permanent jobs, which would be significantly less than associated with the proposed Southpointe PUD.

This alternative, like the proposed Southpointe PUD, would have "main street-type" mixed use retail/office buildings (retail shops at street level with offices on the second floor) within the adult lifestyle community. This alternative would not include the large-scale grocery store or skating arena proposed for the Southpointe PUD design.

The volume of traffic generated by this alternative, and thus potential traffic impacts, would be reduced as compared to the proposed Southpointe PUD, principally due to the elimination of the shopping center near the Thruway. Traffic impacts would also be reduced by removing the proposed access road to the South Parkway. Any increase in traffic from the larger number of adult lifestyle

39


. ' '·'

residences as compared to the proposed Southpointe PUD would be expected to be offset by the reduction in single family residences.

This alternative would result in a combined net fiscal benefit to the Town and School District at full buildout of $664,350 annually. The School District would have a net annual generation of $1,024,405 in revenues, while the Town would have a net annual loss of $360,055.

An extension of the public sewer to the Site in the area north of the pipeline would be required for this alternative. The number of overall units in this alternative would be less than in the proposed Southpointe PUD and there would be a larger proportion of adult lifestyle residents. Consequently, the flows from this alternative would be expected to be somewhat less than from the proposed PUD.

The mitigation measures that are included in the proposed Southpointe PUD would be re-evaluated under this alternative, once the Townwide Sewer Study, currently under review by the NYSDEC, is released. Mitigation measures that would be considered by the Applicant under this alternative would include:

o construction of a wet weather overflow retention facility on the Site or a nearby site to alleviate wet weather flow problems in the Carl Road and adjacent areas;

o financial contribution to the Town specifically for purposes of sewer system upgrades; and/or

o other mitigation measures which may be identified as necessary in the Town-wide Sewer Study.

This alternative, in the opinion of the Applicant, would meet the growing public need for housing for retirement aged adults. The provision of open space and associated recreation would also meet Town need. The Applicant believes that there is a need for a public ice skating rink; that perceived need would not be met. There would also be no large scale grocery market, as requested by some Town residents.

The Applicant's Market Position Analysis annexed to the EIS as Appendix K recommended that the optimal mix of housing for the Site would be 374 age-restricted units for retirement aged adults and 265 non-restricted residential units. This is somewhat different than the mix in the Southpointe PUD. However, it appears to be quite different from the mix of units in the Open Space Preservation Alternative. This alternative would contain 549 agerestricted units and 40 unrestricted single family dwelling.

The Market Position Analysis also recommended a particular mix of both restricted and unrestricted units. The Open Space

40


. ' ' '

Preservation Alternative would incorporate a housing mix that is at variance with the recommendations in the Analysis. For example, the Report recommended 100 assisted living flats and 50 independent living flat for adult housing. The alternative provides for 50 assisted living flats and 100 independent living flats. The alternative contains nearly twice as many condominium apartments as recommended in the Analysis (60 versus 31) and four times as many townhouse villas as recommended by the Analysis (128 to 32). For unrestricted housing, the Analysis recommended a mix of four types of units that totaled 265 houses, whereas the alternative contains only 23 residential lots and 17 estate lots.

The differences in the total number of units and types of housing between the Open Space Preservation alternative and the recommendations in the Analysis raise a question regarding the ability of the alternative to comply with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act that at least 80 percent of the designated agerestricted units be occupied by at least one person over 55 years of age. Thus, there are questions regarding the viability of the alternative to survive as an adult lifestyle community.

The EIS assessed the impacts of the failure of the proposed Southpointe PUD to maintain compliance with these requirements and the resultant conversion of 28 percent of the adult lifestyle units to market rate units that would be occupied by families. The 28 percent figure derived from the size of the adult lifestyle units; the Applicant believed that only the patio homes and residential lot units were of sufficient size to accommodate families.

Employing a comparable analysis for this alternative, 38 percent of the adult lifestyle units (211 units) would be of sufficient size to accommodate families. Assuming the conversion of this percentage of units, certain impacts of this alternative would be increased. Population would increase as would the number of school children; however, this number should still be within the existing capacity of the school system. Similarly, there would be additional sanitary sewage, but less than the proposed development. Fiscal impacts on the School District would increase due to increased expenses for education, so the District's net annual revenues would decrease somewhat.

Under this assessment, traffic would increase, although volumes, and thus impacts, should remain less than the proposed Southpointe PUD. However, the Applicant has not specified whether this alternative would need mitigation measures to ensure the absence of any significant traffic impacts and, if so, whether the Applicant would bear the responsibility of paying for any such measures. Furthermore, the Applicant has not indicated whether this alternative would include phasing. If it does not, certain effects, such as traffic impacts, would be accelerated and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures at an earlier stage than contemplated for the proposed Southpointe PUD.

41


. ' '.

In addition, the Board notes that its consultants were concerned that a failure of the proposed Southpointe PUD to comply with the strictures of the Fair Housing Act could result in conversion of more than 28 percent of the units in the adult lifestyle community to single family residential use. This concern would also apply to an alternative that placed greater reliance on restricted adult lifestyle units than the proposed Southpointe PUD,

This alternative would be consistent with certain elements of the Comprehensive Plan and have a questionable relationship with other aspects of the Plan. The density of this alternative PUD design, using the same methodology employed in EIS, would be 2.8 du/ac, as compared to the 3.5 du/ac in the proposed Southpointe PUD. This density would be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, as density would be greater than the recommended O. 3 du/ac. The alternative would be partially sewered, and thus require the creation of a new sewer district (or the expansion of an existing district). This would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The inclusion of the 38,000 square foot adult lifestyle mixed use component and 30,000 square feet of office space would not be consistent with the Land Use Plan, which recommends that the Site be devoted to low density residential use. The Plan's recommendation for the revitalization of the Love Road Hamlet might be made unnecessary by this alternative, as this commercial component should be capable of serving the same community needs and providing the same services as the revitalized hamlet.

The alternative would be compatible with other goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, primarily by preserving a large area of open space in perpetuity and including a trail system and bike paths that would allow for recreation and access and use by nearby residents. As noted above, the mixed use component of the development would be expected to service the immediate neighborhood.

6. Alternative Sites

The Applicant's alternative site assessment considered 15 potential development sites in the Town, which were compared on the basis of environmental, locational, planning and economic factors.

42


' 0

The Applicant concluded that the Site was the most favorable location.

N. Summary Of Findings

The proposed action includes the rezoning of the Site from RlA and R-lB to PUD and the creation of a new Town Sewer District No. 7 for the proposed Southpointe PUD. The Town Board finds that each of those elements of the proposed action has significant, unmitigated adverse environmental effects that, even when considering social, economic and other relevant factors, are not acceptable. The Town Board further finds that any of the significant impacts identified in the preceding sections of the Findings and summarized below, independent of other impacts, would also be sufficient, even when considering social, economic and other relevant factors, to warrant disapproval of the proposed action. A summary of the principal adverse effects of the proposed action follows:

1. The proposed Southpointe PUD contravenes Section 49-24 of the Town Zoning Code in several respects:

a. The proposed PUD's calculated density of 3.5 du/ac exceeds the permissible density of the R-lA zoning underlying approximately 283 acres of the 284 acre Site (calculated in the EIS as 2.178 du/ac) allowed by Section 49-24.C(3). Its density also exceeds the permissible density for the approximately one acre of the Site zoned as R-lB (calculated in the EIS as 3.4 du/ac).

b. The proposed Southpointe PUD is not in accordance with the objectives and principles of the general plan, as required by Section 49-24.C(4) and discussed further below with regard to the consistency of the proposed action with the 1994 Town Comprehensive Plan.

c. The Planning Board has found that the proposed Southpointe PUD is not consistent with the 1994 Town Comprehensive Plan and, consequently, the Applicant has not met Section 49-24. D (1) (b).

2. The proposed Southpointe PUD is not consistent with the 1994 Town Comprehensive Plan in at least the following respects:

a. The Plan designates the Site for residential use. The proposed Southpointe PUD contains 240,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office space.

b. The Plan recommends that the Site be developed at a low density of 0.3 du/ac. The density of the proposed Southpointe PUD, which is calculated in the EIS as 3. 5 du/ac, materially exceeds this recommended density. ·

43


c. The Plan recommends that the Site remain non-sewered and that excess treatment capacity be directed toward avoiding contamination of the East Branch of the Niagara River. First priority for the allocation of sewer capacity is given to existing residential and new development in the Low Density Residential area along River Road. The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map also identifies areas of Office-Research and Light Industrial uses west of the Thruway for Sewer District expansion.

To the extent the proposed PUD entails the creation of a new sewer district, it is inconsistent with this provision. To the extent that the proposed Southpointe PUD could utilize a private STP to treat effluent, it would involve a central sewer system, rather than the private septic system contemplated by the Plan. The central system would be inconsistent with the Plan's designation of the Site for low density residential use.

d. The Plan recommends that community-scale commercialretail-office uses be in the Town Center area, in proximity to the intersection of Whitehaven Road, Baseline Road and Grand Island Boulevard. The proposed PUD would locate 240,000 square feet of commercial-retail-office uses on the Site, approximately 202,000 square feet of which would be near the Thruway and South Parkway. This 202,000 square foot component would be designed to serve the population of the entirety of Grand Island, and is well in excess of that needed to serve only-residents of the proposed development. Consequently, this component of the proposed Southpointe PUD is not consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the location of "community retail shopping, business and professional offices."

3. The proposed PUD is consistent with most of the general goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, such as preservation of open space, preservation and protection of wetlands and provision for recreational amenities. However, it is the Board's finding that these positive and beneficial aspects of the proposed Southpointe PUD do not outweigh the proposed action's inconsistency with important elements of the Town's Comprehensive Plan.

In this regard, the Town Board notes that the Applicant has expressed the view that the Town Board has the authority to take zoning actions that are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if warranted by the concomitant benefits. The Board finds that the benefits of the proposed Southpointe PUD do not warrant action that is inconsistent with the Plan.

4. The 1994 Comprehensive Plan was adopted after extensive planning, information gathering and public and governmental input and review, and was preceded by an EIS. The Town Planning Board has expressed the view that approval of the proposed Southpointe PUD would set an adverse precedent that would sanction

44


contravention of the Plan by other proposed actions. The Town Board is also concerned about the precedential effect of an approval of the proposed Southpointe PUD, although it recognizes that such an action does not establish binding legal precedent and that future zoning applications must be decided on their individual merits. This concern is heightened, however, when the zoning action requested is, like the proposed PUD, undeniably in derogation of fundamental tenets of the Comprehensive Plan. The precedential effect of approval of the instant proposal would, in the view of the Board, set an adverse precedent that is not warranted by associated benefits.

5. The proposed Southpointe PUD would adversely af feet neighborhood character, primarily by introducing incompatible, large scale commercial-retail-office uses (the 202,000 square feet shopping center near the Thruway) into a primarily residential neighborhood. This component of the proposed PUD would be substantially larger than the limited commercial enterprises that are located in the vicinity of the Site.

The Town Board notes that the Open Space Preservation alternative has a number of positive aspects as compared to the proposed Southpointe PUD. The Applicant, however, has not proposed this alternative for Board consideration; it has not submitted an application to rezone the Site to a PUD for this development or to create a new sewer district or to expand an existing district to serve this alternative. In addition, this alternative is materially different than the proposed Southpointe PUD in a zoning and land use context, and thus could not be considered for approval under applicable law until a public hearing on the alternative -if the alternative were proposed by the Applicant were conducted. Similarly, the sewer district associated with this alternative would be materially different than the district for the proposed Southpointe PUD, and would also necessitate a public hearing under applicable law.

There are, moreover, a number of unresolved issues regarding important aspects of this alternative that would need to be addressed before it could properly and appropriately be considered by the Board. These include the following:

o There are questions regarding_the ability of the adult lifestyle community in the alternative to comply with the strictures of the Fair Housing Act, given its divergence from the recommendations for an optimal mix in the Market Position Analysis prepared for the Applicant. This heightens the concern that a material percentage of the adult lifestyle units would be converted to single family residential use, thereby increasing environmental impacts of the alternative.

o The traffic impacts of the alternative have not been calculated. Although traffic volumes would be less than those that

45


,. j \ . .., ~{1

would be generated by the proposed Southpointe PUD, there has been no discussion of whether the mitigation measures that would be necessary to mitigate traffic impacts would be implemented and/or paid for by the Applicant.

o The alternative would generate less sewer flow than the proposed Southpointe PUD, but such flows would be expected to have similar impacts to the Town system during wet-weather conditions. The mitigation measures, if any, that would be considered to ameliorate such impacts have been generally identified but have not been assessed in sufficient detail.

o The phasing of development of this alternative has not been addressed. The absence of phasing could result in the acceleration of certain impacts and cause adverse environmental effect that have not been identified.

IV. Conclusion

Having considered the DEIS and the FEIS, including the comments on the DEIS and FEIS and responses thereto, and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions, the Town Board certifies that:

o The requirements of SEQRA, including 6 NYCRR § 617.9, have been met and fully satisfied;

o Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the proposed action is not one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, including the effects disclosed in the FEIS and set forth in Section III of this Findings Statement; and

o Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process, as set forth in Section III of this Findings Statement, have not been minimized or avoided.

New York

s Officer Name of Responsible Officer

Title of Responible Off' Date /

46


Address of Agency: Grand Island Town Hall 2255 Baseline Road Grand Island, N.Y. 14072

Adopted by a motion made by: COUNCILMAN RICHARD W. CRAWFORD, JR.

Seconded by: COUNCILWOMAN ANDREA L. MOREAU

Approved by: ROLL CALL: AYES: C~AWFORD, _MOREAU, _SHARPE, COOKE, PAX NOES: NONE CARRIED

p:\mac\1855\096

47


STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ERIE ss TOWN OR GRAND ISLAND

I, NANCY J. SAMRANY, Town Clerk of the Town of Grand Island, Erie County, New York, do hereby certify that at a REGULAR meeting of the Town Board of the aforesaid Town on AUGUST 18, 1997 the following action was taken subject to Town Board approval:

5. From: Supervisor Pax RE: DISCONTINUANCE OF JUDGMENT - FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT

PARTNERSHIP

MOTION: The notification from the attorneys for Frontier Development Partnership, stating the discontinuance of their notice to show cause for Southpointe, under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, is REFERRED to the Town Board for the file.

MOVED: Cooke ROLL CALL: Ayes: Cooke,

Noes: None CARRIED

SECOND: Crawford Crawford, Sharpe, Moreau, Pax

I do further certify that the members of the Town Board are as follows: James H. -Pax, Supervisor; James R. Sharpe, Councilman; Mary S. Cooke, Councilwoman; Richard W. Crawford, Jr., Councilman; and Andrea L; Moreau, Councilwoman.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Seal of the Town of Grand Island, Erie County, New York this 25th day of AUGUST, 1997.

(SEAL)


7: l~cms5.revize.com/revize/grandislandny/SEQRA Findings Statement August 25... · background of...

Documents

Transcript of 7: l~cms5.revize.com/revize/grandislandny/SEQRA Findings Statement August 25... · background of...