Lewiston Town Board approves concept plan for 5/4 President's Park

Measure calls on further studies to move project forward

By Terry Duffy

Editor-in-Chief

At its regular meeting on Thursday, the Lewiston Town Board, as lead agency, moved to approve a negative declaration and concept plan for the 5/4 President’s Park planned unit development on Washington Drive. The project was proposed by developer Joe Giusiana.

Once final, the 5/4 President’s Park project would add 210 units of apartments in seven buildings to the existing, 168-unit Washington Square complex (Woods at Blairville) off Creek Road.

On a 3-2 vote, Town Supervisor Steve Broderick, along with council members Rob Morreale and Jason Myers, approved to move the plan forward, while members John Jacoby and Sarah Waechter (who was absent) voted no. But it appears this matter remains far from final, as the town also signaled that two studies and more discussions toward ultimate approval of a design plan for the project are still to come.

Morreale, board liaison to the town’s Planning Board, reviewed past discussions as he presented a motion.

“A local law change in a zoning of a sub parcel to accommodate a PUD is being considered for approval,” he said. “The Town Board determines there would be no significant environmental impacts.”

He added, “Whereas the Town of Lewiston received an application from 5/4 Development, the applicant for a planned unit development consisting of an apartment building complex with related community building, recreational facilities, and outdoor space to be located at Washington Drive, the applicant’s concept for the PUD is currently under review.”

Morreale continued, “This is a concept plan that we’re accepting right now. There’s going to be traffic studies. It’s going to be sewer studies, and I’m going to be very stringent in looking at the auto study done in July. Obviously, I want it done when the school’s in session, or when the golf course is open. I’m going to be looking at the sewer study.”

With respect to a sewer study and inflow/infiltration concerns, town Engineer Rob Lannon, vice president of GHD Consulting Services, said, “Related to the sewers for a project like this, you have to have those (numbers) and capacity analysis. That is not necessarily capacity at the treatment plant, it’s connected to the public advance system.”

“It’s a linear advanced part of the (system) that has to be evaluated,” he noted. “That process has to do with several locations with what they call ‘loads’ in manholes between the site and the treatment plant. … (It’s done) during the full monitoring period to see how consistent the system reacts to wet weather events.”

Lannon called this concept “very simple.” He said, “It is (individual) departments discharged by gravity to an 8-inch collector sewer on site, and you connect to the existing sanitary sewer system. … The concept is simple; it’s the proof of concept (that is time-consuming).

Morreale asked, “So, this study could go on for six months because, in July, (precipitation) is not an issue?”

Lannon replied, “We want to do it full, dry weather to see how it (sewer function) behaves in drier conditions, and the see how it behaves in wet weather conditions.”

Jeff Ritter, administrator of the Lewiston Water Pollution Control Center, said that, during the wet weather event experienced by the town last spring, “We put 13 million gallons of untreated water into the sewer.” He went on to support the sewer analysis idea.

With respect to a traffic study, Lannon said it has yet to be done: “There wasn’t (a) traffic analysis, a traffic study. There were communications between the applicant and New York State DOT relative to traffic; DOT said there was not a problem.”

As to its time frame, Lannon said, “That is part of (the) detail design. … That would have to be done as part of the detailed design (phase). So, there’s large work this is in front of the detailed design approval.”

Lannon said other considerations involve the health department, water and sewer departments, and an Army Corps of Engineers review of June 2021 determinations, and the board’s previous approval of the Washington Drive (Woods at Blairville) complex.

As the board moved to approve the negative dec/concept plan, Broderick read comments submitted from Waechter: “I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting and be present for the vote on the President’s Park development. However, I would like the record to show that I am not a supporter on the bonus density, which was granted by the Town Board’s vote, and therefore not a supporter of the President’s Park development as it stands presented.

“And as always, I appreciate those from the community who have reached out with comments.”

Jacoby, who also voted against the project, said, “I share her opinion. You notice that we supported the SEQR. The reason I supported the SEQR is because there’s nothing wrong with the SEQR. It’s been properly prepared; it’s been fully researched …

“But as a concept, oversized project for that neighborhood, I don’t feel it belongs there. I don’t feel it’s in the best interests of the town. I understand that we’re going to do a comprehensive study of the traffic and the sewage problem.

“You know if the development (had) bent over backwards and handicapped this project a little more in keeping with the size of the neighborhood, you might not (have this). My opinion is it’s an improper project for our community.”

Broderick said, “Moving this forward, the concept plan, I am comfortable with what’s going to occur from here on out.

“After speaking with Jeff Ritter, with Bob Lannon, with Tom Seaman our attorney, with Al Bax our attorney, that it’s going to be scrutinized and moved forward. This is just to push the project forward to get the information that we need to have to make the decision.

“Unfortunately, our code, which we didn’t create – we’re actually trying to correct it” does not provide for this.

“I would like to have the traffic study; I would like to have the sewer information before we move on the concept plan. Unfortunately, our code does not provide that. That’ll come with the detailed plan, so I’m comfortable with moving forward until we get the detailed plan to see all the questions that were arisen on sewer and the traffic study.”

The town did not provide further details on when the new traffic studies and sewer capacity reviews would be done, or on any work that may be required on the part of the developer.

The proposal has been met with opposition by many in the community, over increased traffic and impacts on the town’s water treatment system.